IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 18964 of 1996 Between: Bokam Durgala, s/o. Varahalu ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jami Mandal. 4. Smt. Kotyada Appalamma, w/o. Late Poleesu. (Respondent No.4-dismissed for default vide Court order dated 22.06.2001) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Rule nisi calling for the records, leading up to and inclusive of proceedings in RC.No.5923/94/B3 dated 12.08.1996 issued by the 1st respondent herein by issuing an order or writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by quashing the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18964 of 1996 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, in proceedings dated 12.08.1996, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, dated 25.04.1994, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner claims to have purchased the subject land by way of registered sale deed No.1920/76 dated 21.06.1976 from the original assignee Sri Kotyada Poleesu, husband of the 4th respondent, for valuable consideration and in good faith. He claims to have developed the land after purchase. While so, the 4th respondent submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Jami, for restoration of possession of Ac.2-08 cents agricultural land in Sy.No.165/4 of Ramabhadrapuram village and the 3rd respondent, by his order dated 06.01.1994, allowed the request of the 4th respondent and directed that the lands in the petitioner’s possession be resumed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram who, by order dated 25.04.1994, set aside the order of the 3rd respondent holding that Act 9 of 1977, which came in force on 21.01.1977, was prospective in its operation, could not be given retrospective effect and, since the sale transaction between the husband of the 4th respondent and the petitioner had taken place on 21.06.1976, the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 could not be applied to the land in question. The 2nd respondent observed that Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 would not apply to assigned land purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee prior to the commencement of the said Act. He observed that the 3rd respondent, while passing the order, had not even clarified as to whether the transferee was a landless poor person or not. The 2nd respondent observed that, since Act 9 of 1977 was prospective in its operation, it did not apply to the subject land in question and, accordingly, the order of the 3rd respondent was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the 3rd respondent filed a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Vizianagaram who, in his order dated 12.08.1996, held that transfer of assigned land, even prior to the commencement of Act 9 of 1977, would attract the provisions of the said Act and that the action of the 3rd respondent in restoring the assigned land to the original assignee, vide proceedings dated 06.01.1994, was valid and in accordance with law. The order dated 25.04.1994 of the 2nd respondent was set aside. It is well settled that Section 3 (1) of Act 9 of 1977 not only prohibits transfer of assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land, which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act, shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law, that no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer and that the expression ‘and shall be deemed never to have been transferred’ in Section 3(1) of the Act was an unmistakable indication that the Legislature intended to invalidate transfer of assigned land retrospectively also, [Dharma Reddy vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan[1]]. As such, the conclusion of the Joint Collector that Act 9 of 1977 applies to transactions entered into even prior to the commencement of the Act cannot be validated. That, however, does not conclude the matter in dispute. Under Section 3 (5) of Act 9 of 1977, nothing in the Section shall apply to an assigned land, which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee. The petitioner claims to be a landless poor person and to have purchased the land from the original assignee Sri Kotyada Poleesu vide registered sale deed dated 21.06.1976 for valuable consideration. As rightly held by the 2nd respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought to have ascertained whether the transferee was a landless poor person or not before passing orders resuming the land in question. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the orders of the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The matter stands remanded to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who shall examine whether the petitioner is a landless poor person or not, as defined in Section 2(3) of Act 9 of 1977, and whether he satisfies the ingredients of sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the said Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall give the petitioner and the legal heirs of the 4th respondent an opportunity of being heard before passing an order afresh in accordance with law. Since the matter has been pending for the past more than three decades, it is but appropriate that the Mandal Revenue Officer passes an order afresh, after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 12.03.2009 v v [1] 1987 (1) ALT 124 (FB)