B RAMAIAH Vs. M R O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises a question as to the meaning and scope of Section 6 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. First we shall state the facts relevant to the controversy.

(2.) Fourth-Respondent, E. Gangamma was assigned an extent of 4 Acres in Survey No. 45/2A/1 in Nidimamidi village, by Tahsildar, Penukonda, in his proceedings dated 12-9-1973. Gangamma raised a loan of Rs. 10,000/- on the security of the said land from the Agricultural Development Bank, Penukonda, for agricultural purposes. On 2-1-1985 the said land was purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale-deed executed by Gangamma. According to the petitioner, the consideration stipulated for the transaction was As. 34,500/-, though the sale-deed mentions the same at Rs. 25,000/- only. Be that as it may, a part of the consideration was utilized for discharging the aforesaid mortgage. The sale-deed does recite this fact. Further, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- out of the consideration received by Gangamma was utilized by her for purchasing a piece of land, half-an-acre in extent. The sale deed for the said extent was also executed on the same day, i.e., on 2-1-1985. "While so, on the basis of a complaint made by Gangamma, proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), were initiated by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi. After making the necessary enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders directing the petitioner's eviction. Since the Act does not provide for an appeal or other remedy against the said order, the petitioner is questioning the same by way of this writ petition.

(3.) The impugned order (dated 22-7-1987) recites the following facts:- Gangamma was assigned the said land on 12-9-1973. She took a loan of Rs. 14,000/- on the security of the said land from the Agricultural Development Bank, Penukonda, for digging a well. She dug the well, developed the land, and was rasing crop with the help of an oil engine. However, on account of certain financial troubles and ill-health of her husband, she was unable to cultivate the land; hence she gave the same on lease (Koru) to the petitioner, who obtained a registered sale deed from her by misleading her. Gangamma, therefore, requested for restoring the land to her. The petitioner also filed an application before the M.R.O. stating that Gangamma has sold the said land in bis favour by misleading him, that he has obtained a registered sale-deed and paid the full consideration. He, therefore, requested that the land be resumed and granted on patta to him. Proceedings were taken under the Act and notices issued to both Gangamma and the petitioner. The petitioner stated before the M R.O. that Gangamma misled him stating that it is a patta land, and thereby induced him to purchase it. After purchasing the land he has developed it and has been cultivating the same. Gangamma stated that she had developed the land with the loan raised from the Agricultural Development Bank ; that she was cultivating the same ; that the land is now valued at Rs. 50,000/-, to 60,000/- and that the petitioner who is an intelligent person, managed to get the property registered in his favour by misrepresentation. The M.R.O. inspected the land, looked into the sale-deed obtained by the petitioner, and finding that there has been a violation of Sec. 3 of the Act, directed the restoration of the land to Gangamma.