THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21199 of 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 8.7.2001, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners herein claim to be the owners, and to be in possession, of 1149.50 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.42/8 having purchased it from their vendors through an agreement of sale cum G.P.A. dated 7.4.2010. It is their case that an extent of Ac.2-15 guntas in Sy.No.42/8 is Government land, and was assigned to Sri Garishe Durgaiah by the revenue authorities way back in 1954 delivering vacant possession to him; since then he was cultivating the land; after his demise, the land was mutated in the name of his son Garise Lingaiah as pattedar and possessor; after G. Lingaiah’s demise, the land was mutated in the name of his legal heirs including Sri Garise Bakkaiah who had constructed a house on the said land which the petitioners eventually purchased; the Tahsildar, Mancherial had issued notice to the petitioners on 30.12.2010 calling upon them to show cause why the said land should not be resumed as the vendor had violated the conditions of assignment; the petitioners had replied thereto but to no avail; against the order passed by the 3rd respondent the petitioners had preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector who had also passed an erroneous order. Sri P. Sajan Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the land was assigned to Garishe Durgaiah way back in 1954 under the Special Loani Rules (then in force), and there was no condition of non-alienation; the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 (A.P. Act 9 of 1977) applied only to cases where land is assigned under the provisions of the said Act; in the present case the land was allotted under the Special Laoni Rules; as such, the 1977 Act was not applicable; the petitioners were landless poor persons; with the intention to eke out their livelihood by agriculture, they had purchased the said lands from their vendors; they were bonafide purchasers, and had paid valuable consideration; and, therefore, the order passed by the Joint Collect was not in accordance with law, and was illegal. In his order dated 8.7.2011 the Sub-Collector, Mancherial noted that the petitioners herein had purchased assigned lands in Sy.No.42/8 for an extent of 1149. 50 sq. yards situated at Naspur village of Mancherial Mandal through registered document No.4095/2010 and 4100/2010; the Tahsildar had issued notice in Form II under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Rules, 2007 calling upon the petitioners to show cause; the petitioners had not submitted any reply thereto; and, accordingly, the Tahildar had passed resumption orders directing that the lands be taken into Government custody. The Sub-collector further held that the petitioners had purchased assigned land vide registered sale deed No.4095/2010 and 4100/2010 in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfer) Rules, 2007, and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. A.P. Act 9 of 1977 is an Act to prohibit transfer of certain lands assigned to landless poor persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “assigned lands” to mean lands assigned by the Government to landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation, and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings. The definition of 'assigned land' makes it clear that lands assigned to landless poor persons, under the rules for the time being in force, is subject to the condition of non-alienation. If there is a condition of non-alienation while assigning the lands or the land is assigned under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, then only is it deemed to be “assigned land” under A.P. Act No.9 of 1977. When the lands are not “assigned lands”, A.P. Act No. 9 of 1977 has no application. (Nimmagadda Rama Devi v. The District Collector, Krishna[1]). The Act not only seeks to protect assignees, but also prohibits transfer of the assigned land on or after commencement of the Act. It is retrospective in operation and applies to all transfers of assigned lands prior to coming into force of the Act. (Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan[2]; T.P.M. Chowdeswara Rao v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District[3]). Assignment, which is not made with a condition of non-alienability, does not fall within the definition of “assigned lands” as contemplated under the Act. (Letter Sent From Plot No.338 etc. v. Collector & District Magistrate[4]; Joint Collector, Rangareddy District v. P. Harinath Reddy[5]). The prohibition under Section 3 of the Act comes into operation only in cases where the land is assigned subject to the condition of non- alienation. (Rambagh Satyanarayana v. Joint Collector, R.R. District[6]). Section 3 of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 relates to prohibition of transfer of assigned lands and, under sub-section (1) thereof, where before or after the commencement of the Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and, accordingly, no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. Under sub-section (2), no landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. Under sub-section (3), any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. Under sub-section (5) nothing in Section 3 shall apply to assigned land which is purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of the Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement. Section 4 relates to the consequences of breach of the provisions of Section 3 and, under sub-section (1) thereof, if in any case the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar, authorized by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of Section 3(1) have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he may by order: a. take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession after such written notice as the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer may deem reasonable and any crop or other produce raised on such land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited, thereon shall also be forfeited, if not removed by him, after such notice, as the Collector or the Mandal Revenue Officer may direct. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer and any property forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer may direct. b. (i) reassign the said resumed land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, subject to the condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction. The proviso thereunder restricts reassignment to cases specified therein. Section 10 stipulates that the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that, in reply to the show notice dated 30.12.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, a reply was submitted by the petitioners, it is clear from the order of the 2nd respondent that, after the Tahsildar, Manchirial had issued notice in Form II under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Rules, 2007 on 30.12.2010 calling upon the petitioners to show cause within 15 days why the assigned land should not be resumed, they had not submitted any written reply within the stipulated time resulting in the Tahsildar, Manchirial passing orders of resumption. Even before the 2nd respondent all that was contended was that the petitioners had purchased the land under the registered sale deeds bondafide presuming that these lands were patta lands; if they were assigned lands, the Sub-Registrar, Manchirial ought to have refused registration of the documents; the petitioners were not aware that the lands purchased by them were government assigned lands; the respondents had not conducted a proper enquiry; and they were landless poor persons, and had no other land in their names. It is for the first time, in the present writ petition, that this plea, of the land having been assigned by the Government without any condition of non-alienation, been raised and, since this is a mixed question of fact and law which ought to have been raised either before the 3rd respondent by way of their objections to the show cause notice issued in Form II, or in the appeal filed before the 2nd respondent, I see no reason to examine this contention raised for the first time before this Court. As A.P. Act 9 of 1977 has retrospective operation and the petitioners have, on their own admission, purchased assigned lands by way of registered sale deeds in the year 2010, it is evident that the assigned lands have been alienated in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3(5) applies only to transfer of assigned lands prior to commencement of A.P. Act 9 of 1977, and not thereafter. Even under Section 4(b)(i) of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 it is only where the assigned lands have been purchased in good faith, and for valuable consideration, on or before 29.1.2007, and the person who purchased the land is a landless poor person and is in occupation of the said land using it for agriculture or as house sites as on the date of taking possession, is the District Collector required to reassign the resumed land in his favour. In the case on hand the land was purchased in the year 2010 much after the cut off date of 29.1.2007 and, as such, Section 4(b)(i) is also not attracted. I see no reason, therefore, to interdict either the impugned order or the action of the respondents in resuming the assigned lands in question. Viewed from any angle, the order under challenge does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 29 -09-2011 asp [1] 1996(4) ALT 325 (DB) [2] 1987 (1) ALT 124 [3] 2002(3) ALD 53 [4] 2008(5) ALT 313 [5] 2009(4) ALT 1 (DB). [6] 2000(2) ALD 433