G. AMRUTHA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 5 purchased plots of 200 square yards each, carved out of survey No.233 of Nizampet Village, Kukatpally, in the year 1989 and the 6th petitioner purchased a plot of similar size from the same survey number in the year 1991. The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Qutubullapur Mandal, 4th respondent herein, initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners and certain others. It was mentioned that an extent of Acs.4.00 each, in Sub- division Nos.24, 25 and 26 in Survey No.233 were assigned in favour of Seetharam Reddy, Yella Reddy and Ramakrishna Reddy, respectively, vide orders, dated 15-06-1961, the said assignees have divided the lands into plots and sold them to various persons, including the petitioners. Explanations were submitted stating inter alia that the land was purchased for consideration from the Government and that the provisions of the Act do not apply. Not satisfied with that, the 4th respondent passed an order, dated 10-03-2010, directing resumption of the land. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners contend that the land was assigned/ transferred under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Rules 1950 (for short 'the Rules') in Form-G and that no condition prohibiting alienation of such land was incorporated in the orders. They submit that the very initiation of the proceedings under the Act vis--vis the land, was untenable.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter - affidavit is filed. It is admitted that the land was assigned under the Rules. It is, however, stated that once the Government land is assigned in favour landless poor, alienation of the same would attract the provisions of the Act. According to them, a policy decision was taken by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 25-07-1958, to the effect that prohibition against transfer of assigned lands must be incorporated and since the assignment in favour of the vendors of the petitioners was subsequent to that G.O., the condition applies.