LAWS(APH)-1996-8-63

N RAMA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA

Decided On August 19, 1996
NIMMAGADDA RAMA DEVI Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed assailing the order of the Mandal Revenue Of ficer-2nd respondent herein cancelling the assignment of the petitioners and resuming the lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.IX of 1977).

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the lands in their possession were originally assigned to the assignees on payment of market value and granted 'D' form pattas to the assignees. Thereafter the assignees sold their lands to the third parties including (that of) the present petitioners. The M.R.O., 2nd respondent herein noticing that the lands were transferred by the original assignees in favour of the petitioners, issued a show-cause notice stating why the assignments should not be cancelled as the assignees have violated the provisions of Section 3 of Act IX of 1977. It is the case of the petitioners that the assignees have purchased theland from the Government on payment of market value who in turn sold their lands to the petitioners on payment of market value only. Further, it is their case that the note appended to Condition No.l in 'D' form patta postulates that non-alienation is not a bar if the assignment was made on collection of market value. During the months of June and July, 1989 the Mandal Revenue Office issued notices alleging that the transaction between the petitioners and the assignees is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of Act IX of 1977, for which the petitioners submitted their explanation stating that the Act has no application to the assignments made to the assignees as per para 1(8) of G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18-6-1954 as the assignment was made only on payment of market value. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they submitted explanation bringing to the notice of Mandal Revenue Officer certain material facts, the M.R.O., passed the impugned orders which are contrary to law. Hence they filed these writ petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Act No.IX of 1977 will not apply to the lands assigned on payment of market value as the note appended to Condition No.1 of 'D' form patta makes it amply clear that the bar of alienation does not apply to the lands assigned on payment of market value; therefore, the assignments cannot be cancelled by applying the provisions of Act No.IX of 1977.