THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.Nos.9927 of 2002 and 9690 of 2005 Date: 16.03.2006 W.P.No. 9927 of 2002 Between: D. Murali & others …. Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad. & others. … Respondents W.P.No.9690 of 2005 Between: Smt. N.Sakuntala Syama Kumari ……. Petitioner and The District Collector, Visakhapatnam & others ….. Respondents. COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are taken up for disposal together, since the lis between the parties is with regard to the same subject matter. W.P.No.9927 of 2002 is filed to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.961/91/A dated 14.02.2002 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, cancelling the assignment granted in favour of one Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. Nos. 5731 of 1991 and 5289 of 1993 filed by the legal heirs of original assignee Akkaboyina Appayamma, as arbitrary and illegal. Whereas, the purchaser of the land from the legal heirs of Akkaboina Appayamma filed W.P.No.9690 of 2005 to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.139/90/HA, dated 28.04.1990 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of both the writ petitions, are that, the petitioner in W.P.No.9690 of 2005 is said to have purchased the land in an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy. No.335/3 from Akkaboyina Appayamma, under a possessory agreement of sale, dated 30.12.1987. Subsequently, on the death of said Appayamma on 14.10.1989, the petitioner filed O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, against her legal representatives, seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987 and obtained decree in her favour on 09.02.2005. Consequently, she filed E.P.No.5 of 2005 before the Executing Court, where the sale deed was executed and was sent to Sub- Registrar, Madhurawada for registration. However, the Sub-Registrar, through his letter, dated 24.03.2005, informed the Executing Court that the land in Sy.No.335/A is a Government land and returned the document without getting it registered. Pursuant thereto, E.P. was dismissed by the order dated 29.03.2005. Later, on coming to know that the patta granted in favour of Appayamma was cancelled for the alleged violation of conditions therein, vide proceeding No.139/90/HA, dated 28.04.1990, by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the same was allotted through proceedings dated 10.08.1990, in favour of Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, who died on 28.09.1989, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Smt. Savitramma and Smt. A. Vijaya Lakshmi, through her G.P.A., filed W.P.Nos. 5731 of 1991 and 5289 of 1993 respectively, questioning the cancellation of D. form pattas granted in their favour in respect of Acs.5.00 each. Some of the petitioners herein filed W.P.M.P.No.5731 of 1991 to implead them as respondents to the above said writ petitions. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that the survey No. which is the subject matter of W.P.No.5731 of 1991 does not tally with the survey No. which the implead petitioners claimed to have purchased. It is alleged that in the survey conducted under the Madras Act 26 of 1948, Acs.5.00 of land was assigned in the name of the father-in-law of Vijaya Lakshmi and after his death her mother- in-law was shown as pattadar. Subsequently, both the writ petitions were allowed on 13.07.2001 and 30.08.2001 respectively and possession of the land was directed to be handed over to the petitioners therein. As against the Order in W.P.No.5289 of 1993, W.A.No.1833 of 2004 was filed mainly on the ground that the writ petition filed by the GPA holder of Vijaya Lakshmi, after her death, is not maintainable. The said writ appeal was allowed on 27.01.2005 and the matter was remanded for its consideration afresh on the aspect of maintainability. On such remand, W.P.No.5289 of 1993 and W.P.No.13296 of 2003 filed by Vijaya Lakshmi through her G.P.A. holder were heard together and were dismissed as withdrawn through a common order dated 18.08.2005. As against the order in W.P.No.5731 of 2001, W.A.No.2064 of 2001 has been preferred. Pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.Nos. 5731 of 1991 and 5289 of 1993, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a show cause notice to Suryanarayana Raju directing resumption of the land assigned to him and its restoration to the original assignees. The same was returned with endorsement “addressee door was locked”. Therefore, the notice was affixed on the ground and subsequently the assignment patta issued in favour of Suraynarayana Raju was cancelled in Rc.No.961/91/A, dated 14.02.2002 and the land was resumed to the Government so as to restore the same to the original assignee. Questioning the cancellation of assignment in favour of G. Suryanarayana Raju and ordering restoration of land to Savitramma, legal heir of original assignee, respondent Nos.3 to 13 in W.P.No.9690 of 2005 filed W.P.No.9927 of 2002 stating that, one Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, a political sufferer, was assigned an extent of Ac.10.00 in Sy. Nos. 335/1, 335/2 and 335/3A in Madhurawada village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam district and subsequently, on the permission granted by the District Collector, through proceedings dated 05.11.1990, the said land was sold to D. Nageswara Rao and K Seetha Rama Raju, from whom the petitioners herein have purchased the same were not served with any notice and the orders passed are in violation of principles of natural justice, notice issued to a dead person is illegal and invalid. Counter and additional counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 to 13 in W.P.No.9690 of 2005 (petitioners in W.P.No.9927 of 2002) contending that the writ petition is barred by latches. It has been alleged that the writ petition is filed merely after lapse of 15 years from the date of cancellation of patta in favour of Akkaboyina Appayamma. Admittedly, the said Appayamma died in the year 1989. The petitioner filed O.S.No.320 of 2004 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987 after 14 years of the death of Appayamma, therefore the suit itself is barred by limitation. A rejoinder is filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 13 in W.P.No.9690 of 2005 along with the photographs to show that they are in possession of the land in question. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed the counter-affidavit in W.P.No.9927 of 2002 stating that survey No.335 (old Sy.No.375) admeasuring Ac.15.17 cents of Madhuravada village, was classified as AWD lands in revenue records, the possession of which was taken over by the Government under Estate Abolition Act. Out of the same, the land in an extent of Acs.5.00 in Sy.No.335/part was assigned in favour of Appayamma and an extent of Acs.4.67 cents in favour of Savithramma. Since both the assignees failed to bring the land under cultivation, after issuing show cause notices, the assignments granted in their favour were cancelled and thereafter the same was assigned in favour of Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, freedom fighter. Pursuant to the directions issued in W.P.Nos. 5731 of 1991 and 5289 of 1993, the assignment granted in favour of Suryarnarayana Raju was cancelled and an extent of Acs. 5.00 was handed over to Savithramma, likewise the remaining land was handed over to P.N. Raju, G.P.A. holder of A. Vijayalakshmi, under a delivery receipt. Later, it came to light that P.N. Raju, G.P.A. holder, suppressed the factum of death of Vijaya Lakshmi and misled the Government and also this Court in filing the writ petition. Therefore, a letter was addressed to the said Raju to return the receipt taken on behalf of Vijaya Lakshmi, for which he replied that the said delivery receipt was handed over to one Sri N.B. Murthy, the minor guardian of Aditya, the legal heir of Vijaya Lakshmi. Sri E. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9690 of 2005 contends that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987 with Appayamma in respect of Acs.5.00 in Sy.No.335/3 of Madhuravada village and later filed O.S.No.320 of 2004 for specific performance of agreement of sale against her legal heirs and obtained decree in her favour. He further contends that the assignment granted in favour of Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, freedom fighter, who died on 28.09.1989, is a result of collusion between the revenue officials and the legal heirs of the said Suraynarayana Raju. According to him, respondents 3 to 13, who are said to be the purchasers of the land based on the patta issued against a dead person, cannot derive any title and, therefore, the sale deeds in their favour are null and void. The learned counsel submits that the order dated 28.04.1990 cancelling the patta granted in favour of Smt. Appayamma, who died on 14.19.1989, is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 13, who are petitioners in W.P.No.9927 of 2002, denies the death of Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju on the date of assignment. He contends that once the land was assigned in favour of a political sufferer, cancellation of the same without giving notice to his legal heirs is illegal. He further contends that in view of the dismissal of W.P.Nos. 5289 of 1993 and 13296 of 2003 filed by A. Vijaya Lakshmi, through her G.P.A. holder, as withdrawn, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, cancelling the assignment granted in favour of Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petitions, has to be declared as null and void. I shall first deal with the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 13 and petitioner in W.P.No.9927 of 2002. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is categorically asserted that they were informed that Suryanarayana Raju made application for grant of patta as political sufferer before his death, which was considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and, ultimately, orders were passed issuing patta on 10.08.1990 after the death of said Suryanarayana Raju and the same cannot be doubted or disputed by the petitioner, who had no locus. Whereas, in the additional counter filed by them and in W.P.No.9927 of 2002, it is stated that Suryanarayana Raju sold the land in favour of D. Nageswara Rao and K. Sitarama Raju vide sale deeds dated 16.02.1991 and 14.02.1991 respectively, which evidently is an improvement and resilient from the earlier stand taken. The above sale deed filed as Exs.P13 and P14 as material documents in W.P.No.9927 of 2002 disclose that Venkatapathi Raju, S/o Sagi Ramachandra Raju, G.PA holder of G. Suryanarayana Raju executed the sale deed in favour of K. Seetharama Raju and others. The seventh respondent in W.P.No.9927 of 2002, who got herself impleaded, filed W.P.M.P.No.24084 of 2003 seeking permission to file additional material papers including death certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Bhimavaram municipality, who certified the death of Suryanarayana Raju on 28.09.1989. The learned Government Pleader also made available the said death certificate obtained by the Mandal Revenue Officer from the Registrar of Births and Deaths with the same date of death. From a perusal of the record, it appears that Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, a political sufferer, who died on 28.09.1989, was assigned the land in an extent of Ac.10.00, through proceedings dated 10.08.1990. Once the assignment itself is in favour of a dead person, the same is null and void and respondent Nos. 3 to 13, who are petitioners in W.P.No.9927 of 2002, cannot plead that they are bona fide purchasers of the land assigned to the said Suryanarayana Raju, since the assignment itself is null and void. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot claim any relief from this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor can protect their possession through judicial process. It is well settled that once the fraud or illegality is detected in granting assignment, the High Court is not under obligation to extend its equitable jurisdiction to protect the persons benefited of the illegal assignment. Further, through G.O.Ms.No.633, Revenue (R) Department, dated 05.05.1982, the Government banned the assignment/alienation of Government vacant lands to other than public purposes in district and taluk head quarters, municipal towns and gram panchayats and prescribed the manner in which the said lands can be disposed of by the Collector after obtaining necessary permission. In view of the ban imposed by the Government, the permission accorded by Joint Collector and assignment made in favour of the dead person is void and the petitioners cannot derive any rights by purchasing the said property. It is well settled that if the order passed namely assignment made in favour of D. Suryanarayana Raju, is found illegal or invalid, it cannot be relied upon for setting aside the impugned order and quashing the impugned order namely cancellation of the assignment made will have the effect of restoring the illegal order/assignment. In such a case, the High Court shall be slow in exercise of its writ jurisdiction {See Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 828)}. It is equally well settled that an order per se illegal cannot be legalized through judicial process. Having regard to the said fact, the petitioners in W.P.No.9927 of 2003 are not entitled to the relief as sought for and that they are the bona fide purchaser for value do not merit consideration. Insofar as the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.9690 of 2005 is concerned, she admittedly entered into an agreement of sale on 30.12.1987 that is after enforcement of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 9 of 1977. Section 3 of the said Act prohibits transfer or purchase of such lands. Therefore, no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in the petitioner, who acquired the land by purchase, unless she falls under the explanation of sub- section (5) of Section 3, that too if purchases were made prior to enforcement of the said Act. Further, Section 5 of act 9 of 1977 declares any such transaction as null and void and the decree, if any, obtained by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale, is a nullity and no title passes on to her as such.. Once the petitioner cannot enter into an agreement nor can purchase the property, which is admittedly an assigned land, the petitioner acquires no right and he has no locus to question the cancellation of assignment, particularly in view of the fact that W.P.Nos. 5289 of 1993 and 5371 of 1991 filed by the legal heirs of original assignees, questioning the cancellation of assignment, withdrew the writ petitions. In view of the same, I do not see any force, worth its name, in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------- 16.03.2006 ksld