ASSIGNED LANDS PURCHASED BY COMPANY = CIVIL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECLARE = As long as the contention of respondents that the land in question was assigned in nature, the occasion for a civil Court to declare the ownership thereof, in favour of private individuals, does not arise.; WHILE RESUMING ASSIGNED LAND NOTICE IS MUST TO THE PURCHASER ALSO =The Act and the Rules made thereunder mandate that before any assigned land is resumed, the Government on finding that alienation thereof is contrary to the provisions of the Act, notice must be issued not only to the assignee, but also to the purchaser.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9840 DIVISION BENCH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR                    

A.S.NO.878, 884 of 2012 and W.P.No.16228  of 2009  

03-04-2013

Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt.Ltd., Vijayawada

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department, Hyderabad and others

Counsel for the appellant: Sri S.Srinivas Reddy

Counsel for respondent: Learned Government Pleader for Appeals

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Citations:

COMMON JUDGMENT:   ( Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha  Reddy)    

These two appeals and the writ petition are filed by the same company and are in
relation to the same land.  Hence they are disposed of through a common
Judgment.

The appellant is a Private Limited Company, engaged in various activities,
including business in real estate.  It purchased an extent of about 290 acres of
land in Jalli Pullala Cheruvu Village ,Racharla Mandal, Prakasham District,
from various individuals.  The respondents i.e. the Authorities of the Revenue
Department, are said to have made an attempt to interfere with the possession of
the appellant over the land stating that the land was assigned in nature and any
purchase made by the appellant is violative of the provisions of the A.P.
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act, 1977 (for short " the Act ").

Alleging that the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and
enjoyment of the land, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4987
of 2005 with a prayer to direct the respondents to recognise their rights and
title over the land.  The Writ Petition was disposed of on 03-07-2008 leaving it
open to the petitioner to approach the civil Court to establish their rights and
title.  It was also mentioned that if the respondents are of the opinion that
the lands in question are assigned in nature, the proceedings under the Act are
to be initiated.

Acting on the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.4987 of 2005, the
appellant filed O.S.No.109 of 2008 in respect of Ac.134-54 cents and O.S.No.110
of 2008 in respect of Ac.154-92 cents of land in the Court of VI Additional
District Judge, Prakasham at Markapur, for the relief of declaration of title
and perpetual injunction.  It was pleaded that the lands were purchased after
verification of the title and on being satisfied that the vendors have saleable
interest in the property and that the respondents are not at all justified in
questioning the title or making an attempt to interfere with the possession.
       
The respondents filed written statement, opposing the suits.  The trial Court
dismissed the suits through a common judgment
dated 09-04-2012. The appeals are filed against the decrees passed in the two
suits.

During the pendency of the suits, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur
passed an order dated 16-02-2009 directing the Tahsildar, Racharla Mandal, to
initiate proceedings under the Act against the appellant in respect of land in
question.  Challenging the said order, the appellant filed W.P.No.16228 of 2009.
Reference was also made to the possession of the appellant over the land and the
nature of protection to be given there to.



Heard Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned
Government Pleader for appeals, for the respondents.

The suits were filed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual
injunction.   On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed
the following issues in both the suits:-

O.S.No.109 of 2008
1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule property and
entitled for permanent injunction as prayed?

2. Whether the plaint schedule lands were cultivated by the villagers of
J.P.Cheruvu village as Sivoijamadars and pattas were issued by the Government?

3. Whether the plaintiff has purchased the schedule mentioned property under
registered sale deed fro the pattadars and successors of sivoijadars of land
owners and whether the said lands are forest lands as per RSR?

4. Whether the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.4987 of
2005 directed not to evict the plaintiff without following due process of law?

5. To what relief?

O.S.No.110 of 2008
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and consequential
injunction as prayed?

2. To what relief?

On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.40 were
filed.  Exs.X.1 to X.5 were also taken on record.  On behalf of the respondents,
RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to B.54 were filed.
        The suits were dismissed, and in the appeals, the only point that arises
for consideration is as to
"Whether the appellant is entitled to seek relief of
declaration of title in the teeth of the provisions of the Act?".

        It may be true that the appellant purchased the lands being under the
impression that the vendors have saleable interest. 
 However, if it emerges that
the lands were assigned to their vendors at any point of time, different picture
altogether emerges.  
The Act prohibits the transfer of lands assigned to the
landless poor.  
Prohibition operates, if certain conditions mentioned in the
relevant provisions exist.  
Certain exceptions are also carved out.  
The
question as to whether the exceptions get attracted to a particular transaction
can be considered, if only the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act are
initiated.  
Further,  the Act provides series of remedies in the form of appeals
and revisions.  
The appellant can be said to have had cause of action, if only
when the proceedings under the Act are initiated against him.  
As long as the
contention of respondents that the land in question was assigned in nature, the occasion for a civil Court to declare the ownership thereof, in favour of private individuals, does not arise.

        The respondents have already taken a decision to initiate the proceedings
under the Act and the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was
assailed in the Writ Petition.  There again, the order passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer did nothing more than require the Tahsildar, the competent
authority, to initiate necessary proceedings.
The Act and the Rules made
thereunder mandate that before any assigned land is resumed, the Government on finding that alienation thereof is contrary to the provisions of the Act, notice must be issued not only to the assignee, but also to the purchaser.  
The
appellant is entitled to be put on notice, before any proceedings are initiated.

Since the respondents have already decided to initiate proceedings, the matter
must be left to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act and Rules made
thereunder.
 It has already been observed that the question of declaring the
appellant as owner of suit schedule property as long as the contention of the
respondents that it is assigned land remains; does not arise.

Hence, the Appeal Suits are dismissed with an observation that it shall be open to the appellant to put forward their contentions and assert their rights in the proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents under the A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act, 1977.

            W.P.No.16228 of 2009 is disposed of, directing that whenever the
Tahsildar intends to initiate proceedings under the Act, vis--vis the land in
question, he shall issue notice to the appellant and pass appropriate orders,
after taking into account the contentions that may be advanced by the appellant.
It is also directed that none of the observations made by the trial Court in the
judgments in O.S.Nos.109 and 110 of 2008, shall be taken as final.

        The miscellaneous petitions filed in these Appeal Suits and Writ
Petition shall stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
____________________  
K.G.SHANKAR, J  
Dt:03-04-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.