NARAPAREDDY BUJJAMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the petitioner purchased Ac. 0. 90 cents of land in Survey No. 304/2 of Chowta Bhimavaram Village from K. Tirupalu (fourth respondent), under a registered sale deed dated 26. 5. 1990 for Rs. 6,900/-, a notice in Form No. 1 of A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfer) Rules, 1977 (for short 'the Rules') framed under A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for- short 'the Act')was issued to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer, (the third respondent), to show-cause why the said land, which is an assigned land, purchased by him cannot be taken possession of from him and reassigned to the fourth respondent. Petitioner sent his reply to that notice through his advocate on 3. 1. 1996. After considering the said reply third respondent by his order dated 5. 2. 1996 directed the Mandal revenue Inspector to take possession of the land purchased by the petitioner and restore possession thereof to the fourth respondent. The said order of the third respondent is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value from the fourth respondent, and is in possession and enjoyment thereof from the date of purchase, third respondent was in error in passing the impugned order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is also his contention that petitioner filed a suit in the civil Court and obtained an injunction against the fourth respondent and so third respondent should not have passed the order impugned, ignoring the order of the civil Court. Relying on B. Anjaiah v. District Collector, nizamabad, 1979 (2) ALT 61 (NRC), he contended that the order impugned is not sustainable.

(3.) THAT the petitioner purchased the property from the fourth respondent under a registered sale deed dated 26. 5. 1990, i. e. , long after the commencement of the Act, is an admitted fact. As per section 3 of the Act any transfer of land which is assigned to a landless poor person, made either before or after commencement of the Act is null and void. As per Section 3 (5) of the Act transfers made in favour of a landless poor person, who, in good faith and for a valuable consideration purchase the land from the original assignee prior to the commencement of the Act, are protected. So it is clear that Section 3 (5) of the Act is an exception to the general rule and that Section 3 (5) of the Act applies only to transfers that took place prior to the coming into force of the Act, i. e. , 21. 1. 1977, which are made in favour of landless poor persons for valuable consideration and in respect of those who purchase the same in good faith. Petitioner, even assuming that she is a landless poor person, cannot claim the benefit of Section 3 (5) of the Act inasmuch as she purchased the land from the fourth respondent in 1990, i. e. , long after the Act came into force and since Section 3 (5) of the Act does not apply to the transfers made subsequent to the coming into force of the Act.