THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6126 of 2010 18.3.2010 Between: Badisa Vani Shiva Kumari, W/o.Late Yesudasu …Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6126 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order dated 01.12.2009 passed by the first respondent under Section 4A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act) whereby and whereunder the order of the Sub Collector, Vijayawada in proceedings dated 26.2.2008 was confirmed. In turn the Sub-Collector rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the orders of third respondent directing resumption of the land for contravention of the provisions of the Act. Petitioner’s husband purchased the land admeasuring Acs.1.12 in R.S.No.173/2A situated in Gaddamadugu Village of G.Konduru Mandal in Krishna District (hereafter, schedule land) from Patchigolla Nagesh (hereafter, assignee) under a registered sale deed dated 05.6.1984. Third respondent initiated action under Section 4(1) of the Act and issued a notice on 10.6.2005 to Yesudasu and assignee. They were called upon to submit explanation within 15 days as to why the assigned land in survey No.173/2A should not be resumed for contravention of the provisions under Section 3(2) of the Act. Petitioner alleges that her husband submitted explanation on 29.6.2005. From the record, it is not clear whether third respondent passed any order pursuant to the notice. Petitioner’s husband died on 10.10.2005 leaving behind petitioner and her three sons, who are statedly in possession of the land. In January 2007, it appears that Government directed Revenue authorities to conduct verification of assigned lands. During the process of verification, it was found the land in possession of petitioner was originally assigned to assignee, who sold the land to petitioner. Therefore, notice was issued on 10.4.2007 to petitioner and assignee, calling upon them to submit explanation as to why land should not be resumed for contravention of the provisions of the Act. Petitioner did not submit explanation within the prescribed time. Therefore, on 12.7.2007, the Tahsildar passed orders directing resumption of the land to the Government. Petitioner preferred appeal under Section 4A(1) of the Act before the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada (second respondent) (inadvertently described as Revenue Divisional Officer). The appellate authority verified the Village records and found that the land in survey No.173/2A is ceiling surplus land, that it was assigned to assignee and that in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the land was sold to petitioner’s husband. The appeal was dismissed. Petitioner yet again filed another appeal under Section 4A(2) of the Act to the Joint Collector, which was also rejected by the impugned order. The counsel for petitioner made the following submissions. Notice issued to the assignee and alienee is not in proper form and is not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. Initially the notice was issued and in view of the earlier proceedings dropped, third respondent cannot initiate further action. After purchase of the land, petitioner’s husband approached third respondent for mutation and he himself directed Mandal Revenue Inspector to incorporate the name of petitioner’s husband and, therefore, invocation of the provisions of the Act is arbitrary. As the land in possession of the petitioner is a ceiling surplus land, which was assigned on collection of market value, it is not assigned land. Lastly as per Section 4B(i) of the Act as amended by A.P. Act No.21 of 2008, petitioner is entitled for allotment of the land. These contentions are refuted by the Assistant Government Pleader. It is admitted by the petitioner that the schedule land is a ceiling surplus. It is also admitted that the same was assigned to Patchigolla assignee as per Section 14(2) of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Land Ceiling Act). Even if the assignment was made for market value, does it cease to be assigned land. This is no more res integra. In Vemula Satyavathi v District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam[1], I have considered this question and took the view that even if the ceiling surplus land is given to landless poor person, it has to be treated as assigned land for the purpose of the Act. The relevant observations are as follows. A reading of Section 14(4) and (5) of the Land Reforms Act and Rule 10 of the Land Reforms Rules together it becomes evident that even where the surplus land is assigned on collection of a sum calculated at 50 times the land revenue on such land and the character of the land is not changed, it still remains assigned land. In an unreported judgment in Patakamuru Damodar Prasad v Government of A.P., (Writ Petition No.8520 of 2002, dated 09.7.2002) reported in 2002 (6) ALD 67, I considered the effect of Section 14 of the Land Reforms Act and Rule 10 of the Land Reforms Rules on right of assignee to transfer land to third parties and held as under: Sub-rule (2) prescribes the maximum extent of land that can be assigned, and sub-rule (3) lays down the procedure to be followed for allotment or assignment of Government lands for use of house-sites or for purposes of agriculture shall mutatis mutandis apply to the allotment or transfer of lands under the Rules. Therefore, wherever the Act and the Rules are silent, the revenue officials have to follow BSO 15, which deals with allotment/assignment of agricultural land and/or BSO 21, which deals with allotment of house-sites … … … The Clause (2) of Para 2 of BSO 15 defines “landless poor person” as one who owns not more than two and half acres of wet or five acres of dry land and is also poor. By the very definition, a person who is not poor, but is landless, is not eligible for assignment of the land. Indeed Rule 10(1) of the Rules obliges the Tahsildar to allot surplus land to displaced tenants having no land, landless poor persons, and other agriculturists in that order. A person, therefore, must be poor before seeking assignment of surplus land and also must be landless person. In this background, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on Rule 10 of the Rules in support of his contention that BSO 15 has no application, is misconceived and cannot be accepted. The next aspect of the matter is whether there was proper notice. On one hand petitioner contends that notice issued in form No.3 is not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules and on the other hand it is contended that no notice was issued to petitioner. The plea is therefore inconsistent. Even otherwise when the petitioner filed appeal before the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, and thereafter a revision before the Joint Collector, no such plea was taken. It was only pleaded that mandatory procedure under Rule 3 of the Rules was not followed. Whenever complaint is made that principles of natural justice is violated, it is for the petitioner to prove prejudice caused by such non-compliance. In this case, it is admitted that petitioner’s husband purchased the assigned land and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused. Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Act reads as under. 4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3:- (1) If in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer, authorised by him in his behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he may, by order – (b) restore the assigned land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose:- (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: Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of the reassignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 acres dry land or 2½ acres wet land; Provided further that where the transferee who has purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir, transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor; The petitioner in a writ petition cannot agitate question placing reliance on the above transfer. No such plea was taken before appellate authority or second appellate authority. Nor any material is placed before this Court to appreciate the contention. Except making a broad allegation that petitioner’s husband is landless poor person no other details are forthcoming. Therefore the above provision is of no assistance to the petitioner. All the authorities have considered the matter with reference to the facts and revenue records and applied the law correctly. The impugned order therefore does not warrant any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) March 18, 2010. YS [1] 2003(3) ALD 415