THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11753 of 2002 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the fourth respondent in seeking to alienate the property, in Sy.Nos.44.6, 39.1, 39.2, 10.1, 47.2, 46.6, 47.3, 47.3, 101.2, 47.4, 44.4, 48.4A, 100.0 47.3, 47.3, 48.1, 48.1, 48.1, 48.1, 99.0, 48.3, 47.1,98.0, 47.1, 47.3, 48.1, 48.1, 48.1, 45.2, 48.4A, 48.4A, 44.1, 43.1, 43.2, 44.5 and 44.5, to private parties as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural justice. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be a Public Charitable Trust concerned with the promotion of education, and to have been registered under the Indian Trust Act. It claims to have been constituted under the auspices of the Kanchi Peetham. According to the petitioner, they acquired the aforesaid lands in the year 1983 by way of sale deeds for valuable consideration; the lands were originally assigned to landless poor persons; pattas were issued to them by the then Tahsildar, Nagari in the year 1970; local villagers had cooperated to consolidate the holdings in the interest of obtaining educational opportunities to the rural people; and they were holding several other lands in Sy.Nos.2 to 108 in Kavetipuram and Keelapattu Villages. Reference is made by the petitioner to their earlier representations to the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) on 10.05.1998 and 17.05.1999 opposing acquisition. They would further state that, in the year 2000, when there was an attempt by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to allot the land to third parties, they had submitted representation dated 25.05.2000 to the respondents; and had filed W.P.No.21930 of 2000 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 24.04.2001 observing that, if the petitioners were to be dispossessed, a show cause notice should be given. The third respondent, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.02.2002 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977. The petitioner submitted their reply thereto wherein they stated that they were bona fide purchasers of the property with the laudable intention of establishing an educational institution for higher learning which would be a developmental activity for the local area; the endeavour of the Government and the APIIC to establish power-looms had been abandoned; and there cannot be any objection for establishing an educational institution to sub-serve the public purpose. On the ground that the fourth respondent had instructed the revenue authorities to survey the land with a view to sell it to an Industrialist at Chennai, the petitioner claims to have submitted letter dated 10.05.2002 to the third respondent. The petitioner would contend that the fourth respondent was not entitled to alienate land to private persons through private negotiations; the property which was proposed to be alienated was encumbered by their possession; their application was also pending with the government; and, in such circumstances, the action of the fourth respondent in seeking to alienate the property must be held to be illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Mandal Revenue Officer would state that land admeasuring Ac.41.70 cents in Keelapattu Village, Nagari Mandal was assigned to landless poor in the year 1970; the assigned land was never cultivated; show cause notices were issued to the original assignees on 07.06.1999 calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why the land should not be resumed; the Mandal Revenue Officer, by proceedings dated 20.07.1999, had cancelled the assignment made in favour of the original assignees; after resumption the land was handed over to the APIIC on 02.11.1999 and 22.07.2000; a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.02.2002, who submitted his explanation on 28.04.2002 stating that there was no violation of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); they were in possession of the land; their application for regularisation was pending with the Government; after considering the objections the Mandal Revenue Officer, by order dated 17.06.2002, held that purchase of assigned lands by the petitioner was null, void and in violation of Section 3 of the Act; the petitioner was not entitled for regularisation of his claim over the land; and, as he had purchased assigned lands in contravention of the Act, he could not seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the APIIC, it is stated that they had, vide letter dated 10.09.1998, requested the District Collector, Chittoor to alienate government lands of an extent of Ac.70.59 cents in Sy.No.101/1A of Keelapattu Village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District for development of an Integrated Industrial Development Centre; they had again, vide application dated 15.12.1998, sought alienation of Ac.0.59 cents in Sy.No.49/part; they had deposited Rs.60,42,650/- with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor on 03.06.1999 towards the market value of government lands; the adjoining lands, which were also assigned earlier and the assignment of which were cancelled, were also taken possession by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and handed over to the APIIC on 02.11.1999; out of these lands, an extent of Ac.34.67 cents had been allotted in favour of M/s. White House for setting up an industry for processing, dyeing and finishing of knit fabrics; the said firm had entered into a sale agreement with the Corporation on 20.06.2002, and possession of the lands was handed over to them; on receipt of the sale consideration, the Corporation had executed the sale deed on 20.06.2002 in favour of M/s. White House; and, in these circumstances, the request of the petitioner for assignment of the land in their favour could not be considered. Sri P.Sriraghuram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would refer to the earlier order passed by this Court in support of his contention that, while the APIIC claimed to have taken possession of the land, this Court had recorded that the petitioner was in possession in the year 2000; the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land even as on date; the land was required for the purpose of an educational institution which would not only cater to the educational needs of people living in surrounding areas, but would also help in the over all development of the areas in question; and, since the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, he could not be dispossessed merely on the ground that the lands in question were assigned. Section 3 of the Act relates to prohibition of transfer of assigned lands. 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, then it shall not be transferred and shall never be deemed 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. Section 3(2) prohibits landless poor persons from transferring, and others from acquiring either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise assigned lands. Sub-section (3) stipulates that any transfer or acquisition, made in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be null and void. Sub-section (5) provides that the conditions in Section 3 shall not apply in case an assigned land was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith for valuable consideration from the original assignees or his transferee prior to the commencement of the Act. It is neither the case of the petitioner that they are landless poor nor that these lands were assigned prior to the coming into force of the Act. As such, Section 3(5) of the Act cannot be called in aid by the petitioner to claim the right to remain in possession. Sri P.Sriraghuram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, contend that, even assuming that the land has been resumed, it would be a free hold land of the government and, instead of handing over the land to the APIIC which, in turn, would sell them through private negotiations to private individuals, the land can as well be given to the petitioner which is an established educational institution, and is catering to the educational needs of the people in and around Nagari. The averments, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, would show that the land has already been handed over to the APIIC on their paying the market value of the land to the government. Whether the APIIC was justified in entering into private negotiations with private individuals or whether the petitioner should have been given preference by the APIIC are beyond the scope of this Writ Petition. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from questioning the validity of any such transaction entered into between the APIIC and private entrepreneurs through private negotiations. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition cannot, however, be granted since no right accrues in favour of the petitioner merely on their having purchased the lands from assignees who not only were disabled from alienating the land but had, in fact, alienated it after the lands had been resumed by the government. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.02.2011 usd