THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3810 of 2003 Dated:10.12.2010 Between: C.Venkateswara Rao, And others. ...Petitioners And District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3810 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners, who are eighteen in number, filed the instant writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings E1/1124/2002, dated 11.11.2002. In purported exercise of the powers vested under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1997 (POT Act), the first respondent virtually ordered resumption of the land in possession of the petitioners. The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that their vendor’s vendor (hereafter called, original assignee) was assignee of the land comprised in survey Nos.37 and 38 classified as Kharij Khatha in the revenue records. The assignment was made some time prior to 1961. The original assignee sold the property to one Gangala Muthyalu to an extent of Acs.2.13 guntas. He in turn let out the plots and sold small extents to various persons. The petitioners purchased the land in the layout with a view to construct houses. Relying on a new story that there is a land grabbing in Khanamet Village the first respondent directed respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to demolish the houses. In response thereto, the third respondent sent a report dated 02.02.2002 to the District Collector. He stated that the land in survey Nos.37 and 38 is a Government poramboke land, that assignments were made in 1961 in form 9(g), and that the assignees transferred the land under registered sale deeds inducting purchasers into the land. It appears, the third respondent also issued notices in Form-I under the POT Act calling for explanation as to why the assignment should not cancelled. The petitioners and others submitted explanations, inter alia, objecting that as the land was assigned under Laoni Rules, 1952, the POT Act has no application. The third respondent considered the matter and recorded a finding that the transfer of the land by the assignees without obtaining permission from the District Collector is illegal and arbitrary to assignment rules made by the Government under Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (Revenue Act), vide G.O.Ms.No1406, dated 25.07.1958 (the assignment rules). The counter affidavit filed by the District Collector while reiterating the contents of the impugned order justifies and sustains the same. The main plea is that the alienations without obtaining prior permission of the Collector are contrary to Laoni Rules and that the POT Act has to be enforced retrospectively. It is also alleged that the Tahasildar passed orders under Section 4(1) of the POT Act directing resumption of the land and the petitioners without filing the appeals under Section 4-A(1) of the POT Act preferred the writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioners raised the following submissions. The District Collector being the revisional authority under Section 4-B(1) of the POT Act could not have exercised the power under Section 4(1) of the POT Act which has effect of depriving the petitioners of their remedy under Section 4-A(1) and Section 4-B(1) of the POT Act. He would urge that when the Collector himself has come to a conclusion wrongly, there would not be any effective remedy of appeal or a revision and it is not possible to expect the third respondent to act contrary. Nextly, it is his submission that the POT Act has no application to the land which was originally assigned to Syed Miran and Wahed Ali and others who sold to the vendor of the petitioners. Lastly, he questions the reasonableness of canceling the assignment after lapse of thirty nine years. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letter sent v Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy[1]. The Assistant Government Pleader does not seriously dispute that the land in survey Nos.37 and 38 of Khanamet Village was also subject matter of the writ petition in Letter sent case. She, however, submits that before transferring the land the original assignees did not obtain prior permission of the District Collector, and therefore, the same has no application. The questions urged by the petitioners herein are already considered by the Division Bench in the above decision elaborately with reference to the provisions of the Revenue Act, Laoni Rules and POT Act. The interference between the POT Act and the assignment rules, and the effect of these provisions on the alienations made was summarized as follows. Section 3 prohibits transfer of assigned lands after commencement of the act of any land assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site. Sub-section (2) and Section 3 declares that 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. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 adumbrates 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. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 engrafts an exception to the retrospective operation of Sec.3(1) in favour of those landless poor persons who have already purchased the land prior to the commencement of the Act No.9/1977 from landless poor persons in violation of condition of inalienability, provided purchaser is a landless poor persons purchased in good faith for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of the Act No.9/1977. Further the provisions of Act No.9 of 1977 will not apply to the alienation of pattas/occupancy rights granted under Laoni Rules or under Revised assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dt.25.07.1958 since Act No.9/77 prohibits transfer of assigned land which is defined under Sec.2(1). Laoni Rules as well as the rules issued under G.O.Ms.No1406 dt.25.07.1958 deal with two types of assignments, i.e., assignment on payment of market value and assignment to the landless poor persons. Act No.9/77 deals with assignment by Government to the landless poor persons subject to the condition of inalienability. Further under sec.58-A of the Telangana Area Land revenue Act issuance of notification in the official gazette notifying in respect of any village or tract of the area to which the Act extends, sanction of Collector for transfer of dry land is compulsory and any right of occupation of any land under Sec.54 given after the date of notification shall not be transferable without obtaining previous sanction of the Collector. Since no such notification has been issued making it a condition to obtain sanction of the Collector for possession of unoccupied land compulsory in respect of any village or tract, the condition under Form-G which is contrary to the main statute cannot be invoked for invalidating the transfer of the assigned land in whose favour patta is granted either under laoni Rules or under G.O.Ms.No.1406 on collection of market value. We are of the view that provisions of Act No.9 of 1977 will not be applicable to the cases where assignments were made on collection of market value or under circular 14 except it were granted to the landless poor persons free of market value. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. In this case there is no dispute that the original assignees were granted the land under the Laoni Rules. There is no material before this Court whether the assignees paid any amount or it was given free of cost. In any view of the matter as the District Collector exercised the jurisdiction without enabling the competent authority, namely, the third respondent (Section 4 of the POT Act and Rule 2(b) of the Rules laid thereunder), the impugned order suffers from improper exercise of jurisdiction. On this ground alone, the same is set aside. The matter is now remitted back to the third respondent to initiate appropriate action, if necessary, in accordance with the judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.12.2010 vs [1] 2008 (5) ALT 313 = 2008 (5) ALD 626