THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8799 of 2000 September 24, 2010 Between: Talla Samrajyamma, W/o.Swamynadha Reddy … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8799 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.3.2000 of the first respondent. By the said impugned order, the first respondent dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act) confirming the orders dated 23.8.1997 of the second respondent, who in turn confirmed the orders of the third respondent dated 24.8.1987 under Section 4(1) of the Act directing the resumption of the land from the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is as follows. The petitioner purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.29 in R.S. No.238/2A and Acs.2.45 in R.S.No.238/2B situated at Ganapavaram Village of Mylavaram Mandal in Krishna District, under a registered sale deed dated 28.1.1972. She allegedly used her Streedhana property/money for purchasing the land. The third respondent initiated action under the provisions of the Act and issued a show cause notice dated 0.8.8.1987. In response thereto, petitioner submitted explanation on 14.8.1987. Her plea was that she is a landless poor person, that she purchased the land in good faith and that the land in her possession cannot be resumed in view of Section 3(5) of the Act. The third respondent conducted enquiry and found that petitioner’s father-in-law, Narayana Reddy, owns Acs.21.23, that out of the said land petitioner’s husband, Swamynadha Reddy, is entitled to Acs.7.08 towards his share and, therefore, petitioner is not a landless poor person. By order dated 24.8.1987, the third respondent ordered resumption of the land under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner appealed under Section 4A of the Act. Before the appellate authority, petitioner contended that as the land was purchased in 1972, alienation in her favour is not rendered void under the Act No.9 of 1977. The appellate authority relied on the admission made by the petitioner that her father-in-law gave Acs.16.25 to them in 1978. From this an inference was drawn by the appellate authority and even by 1972 petitioner was not landless poor person. In the revision under Section 4B of the Act, petitioner was also unsuccessful. The legal heirs of the original assignees filed applications being W.P.M.P.Nos.33883 of 2007 and 34167 of 2007 to come on record as necessary parties. By order dated 06.9.2008, this Court permitted them to be impleaded as respondents 7 to 19. Their case is as follows. The land admeasuring Acs.2.45 in R.S.No.238/2B of Ganapavaram Village was assigned to Petru and the land admeasuring Acs.2.29 in R.S.No.238/2A was assigned to Lazar. Subsequently the land was inherited by Sudarsan, S/o.Petru and the sons of Lazar, namely, China Kotaiah, Pethru, Tirupathi Rao. Respondent No.7 is the son of Sudarsan and respondent No.8 is son of Pethru. Respondents 9 to 19 are sons or grandsons of Sudarsan, S/o.Pethru, who was assigned land in R.S.No.238/2B. They allege that the petitioner purchased land in contravention of the Act and so as to prevent the land being re-assigned to legal heirs of original assignees, she filed the writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is a landless poor person, she is entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of the Act. According to him, petitioner’s husband got the land in the family partition in 1978 and, therefore, at the time of purchase in 1972, petitioner’s status is that of landless poor person. Nextly he contends that the land held by the petitioner’s husband cannot be reckoned for the purpose of deciding whether the petitioner is a landless poor person or not and the land owned and possessed by the petitioner’s husband cannot be the basis for deciding the question whether the alienation in favour of the petitioner is void or not. He placed reliance o n Vemulapalli China Kondayya v District Collector, West Godavari District[1] and Dharma Reddy v Sub-Collector, Bodhan[2]. Per contra, the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) and the Counsel for respondents 7 to 19 submit that the petitioner’s family own Acs.21.23 including mango garden of Acs.14.87 and, therefore, she cannot be treated as a landless poor person. They also contend that all the authorities have consistently held, after considering the factual background, that the petitioner is not a landless poor person and, therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, interference with the finding of fact is not called for. The petitioner admits that she is daughter-in-law of Narayana Reddy. She also admits that her husband Swaminadha Reddy got Acs.7.08 towards his share. Merely because the petitioner herself does not own any land does not change status or economic position from the daughter-in-law of a landlord with considerable extent of land to that of a landless poor person. Section 2(3) of the Act defines ““landless poor person” means, “a person who owns an extent of land not more than As.2.50 of wet land or Acs.5.00 of dry land … … and who has no other means of livelihood”.” Two conditions must be satisfied to claim to be a landless poor person. First condition is that a person should not have more than Acs.5.00 of dry land or Acs.2.50 of wet land and second condition is that such person does not have any means of livelihood. If a person has only dry land or wet land less than the stipulated extent but has other means of livelihood like bullock cart, milch cattle, goat grazing, poultry farm or such other rural economic activities, such a person would not come within the definition of “landless poor person”. In the given case, a person may not own any agricultural land but may be engaged in a business or Government employment or may be getting a pension. Even in such a case, merely because such person does not own any agricultural land, he cannot be treated as a landless poor person. The term “landless poor person” is used in Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(5), 4(1) and 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Act (as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act No.8 of 2007). As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Dharma Reddy, Section 3(1) of the Act (which prohibits transfer of assigned land by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage etc.,) applies to transfer of assigned lands made prior to or after the commencement of the Act and that Section 3(1) of the Act is retrospective in nature. Therefore it is necessary to notice the concept of “landless poor person” as understood prior to coming into force of the Act with effect from 21.1.1977, is necessary. Board Standing Order (BSO) 15 deals with grant of lands for the purpose of agriculture. Paragraph 3(2)(ii) of BSO 15 defines “landless poor person” as one who owns not more than Acs.2.50 of wet land or Acs.5.00 of dry land and also poor. In addition to the holding of the agricultural land, a person must also be poor before seeking assignment/grant of land. A plain reading of Section 2(3) of the Act and BSO 15 Para 3(2) (ii) would make it clear that any person who claims to be landless poor person must necessarily show that he does not own any land and that he/she is poor without any means of livelihood and/or that he/she through owns some land, it does not exceed Acs.2.50 of wet land or Acs.5.00 of dry land and also that he/she is poor. In the case on hand, petitioner’s husband owns land admeasuring Acs.7.08. The fact that partition took place in 1978 and the allegation that by the time she purchased the land in 1972, she was not having any land is immaterial. The fact that petitioner was a member of family of landlord, Narayana Reddy (father-in-law) shows that she was not poor person. It is sufficient to disqualify her for being considered as a landless poor person. When she is not landless poor person, she cannot claim the benefit of Section 3(5) of the Act, which exempts the purchase by such landless poor person from the rigour of such sale being null and void under Section 3(3) of the Act. I n Dharma Reddy, the Full Bench noticed the history of legislation i.e., the Act as follows. … … In most cases, the condition attached to the assignment was honoured in its breach; and the lands assigned found their way to the possession of money-lenders and moneyed class of people, the landless poor remaining landless poor, as before. Earlier, by G.O.Ms. No.1142 dated 18.6.1954 the Government sought to resume the lands which were transferred by the original grantees in violation of the condition attached to the grant, but that was found to be too ineffective and too inadequate to achieve the social goal set by the Government. This realisation in the light of the unfortunate experience of the past led the legislature in its wisdom and in pursuance of its declared policy of safeguarding, protecting and improving the condition of the weaker section of the community consisting of landless poor persons, to bring about this change in the legal position by providing that any such transactions would be null and void not merely voidable. This is not only consistent with the mandates in the Directive Principles contained in Part IV of our Constitution, but also in consonance with the Contract Act which provided that any contract which is opposed to public policy would be rendered void. In all these cases, the purchasers would not claim to have acted with bona fides inasmuch as it was with full knowledge that the grantee was not entitled to alienate the lands, and in violation of that condition, that the lands had been so purchased. Voidable transactions could be legally avoided; and that has been done by law in order to avoid the agony of protracted litigation in which the exploited and the deprived would be locked up if the redressal of the grievance by the restoration to them of the land lost to them, is to be obtained by legal proceedings. The history of the legislation is relevant while construing the Act, which has social and economic justice embedded therein. Reading Section 2(3) of the Act by applying the principle of purposive interpretation, it is not possible to accept the submission of the Counsel that in 1972 there was no partition and even after 1978, it is the husband who got the property and the petitioner is a landless poor person. Such interpretation would defeat and subvert the legislation and must be avoided by the Court. In that view of the matter, reliance placed on Vemulapalli China Kondayya is misconceived. It is nobody’s case that petitioner was not member of the family of Narayana Reddy, who was a rich landlord with mango garden. Indeed the petitioner nowhere alleged that she and her husband have no means of livelihood or that they are poor. After receiving explanation, third respondent conducted enquiry and found that petitioner’s father-in-law, Narayana Reddy, is a landlord of Ganapavaram Village and this has not been denied. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) September , 2010 YS [1] 1980 (2) ALT 460 [2] 1987(1) ALT 124 (FB) : AIR 1987 AP 160