Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Assigned Lands: Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Mohd. Syeed Ather (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 5
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can assigned lands, originally granted under Laoni Rules, be resumed by the government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning land assignments in Andhra Pradesh. The core issue revolves around whether lands granted under the Laoni Rules of 1950 can be treated as assigned lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (AP AL (POT) Act) and thus be subject to resumption by the government. This judgment, delivered by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, sets aside the High Court’s decision and orders a fresh review of the matter.

Case Background

This case involves a dispute over land in Khanamet village, originally classified as Kharij Khatta Sarkari. The lands were assigned to individuals, and subsequently sold to various purchasers. The Revenue Divisional Officer initiated proceedings to resume these lands, arguing that the transfers violated the AP AL (POT) Act. The purchasers contended that the lands were not assigned lands under the Act, and that they had obtained permissions for the sale transactions under the A.P. (Telangana Area, Tenancy and Agricultural Lands) Act, 1950 (Telangana Tenancy Act).

The original assignees were issued Form-G on 08.04.1961, after the commencement of the Revised Assignment Policy, without collecting market value. The Revenue Divisional Officer argued that these lands were government lands and were assigned free of cost, and therefore, the transfer of such lands was in violation of the conditions of the assignment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, passed orders to resume the lands, which were upheld by the Deputy Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer. The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, however, set aside these orders, stating that permissions were granted under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale transactions were validated under Section 50-B of the same Act. The High Court concluded that these sections apply only to lands granted on market value, implying that the assigned lands were not subject to resumption. The State of Andhra Pradesh and its officers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (AP AL (POT) Act) and the A.P. (Telangana Area, Tenancy and Agricultural Lands) Act, 1950 (Telangana Tenancy Act).

The AP AL (POT) Act prohibits the transfer of assigned lands. Section 3(2) of the AP AL (POT) Act states:
“No person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.”

The Telangana Tenancy Act, specifically Section 47 and Section 50-B, deals with permissions and validation of sale transactions for certain types of lands.

The High Court had relied on the fact that permissions were granted under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale transactions were validated under Section 50-B.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Andhra Pradesh):

• The appellants argued that the High Court had misconstrued the facts, stating that the assignment of land was not on collection of market value.
• They contended that the patta certificates were issued under the revised assignment policy laid down in G.O.M.S. No.1406 Revenue Department dated 25.07.1958, which meant the assignment of land was free of market value and not alienable.
• The appellants submitted that the High Court erred in holding that permission under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and validation under Section 50-B would suggest that the validation was only for lands granted on market value.
• They argued that the assignment patta certificates were issued on 08.04.1961, after the commencement of the revised assignment policy, without collecting market value.
• The appellants emphasized that under the original Laoni Rules, 1950, and the revised policy of 1958, alienation of assigned land was prohibited.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Government of AP and Ors. v. Gudepu Sailoo and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 625 and Yadaiah and Anr. v. State of Telangana and Ors. (2023) 10 SCC 755, to argue that the High Court had failed to appreciate the condition of non-alienability in Form G issued on 08.04.1961 and the revised policy under G.O.M.S. No.1406 dated 25.07.1958.

Arguments by the Respondents (Purchasers of the Land):

• The respondents argued that the lands were not assigned lands covered by the provisions of the AP AL (POT) Act.
• They contended that several transactions had occurred since 1965, and the lands were mutated in the names of subsequent purchasers.
• The respondents also argued that the Tehsildar granted permission under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and validated the sale transactions under Section 50-B of the same Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue framed by the High Court for consideration was:

1. Whether lands which were granted Patta under Laoni Rules, 1950 can be resumed under the provisions of the AP AL (POT) Act, treating them as assigned lands.

The Supreme Court also considered the following sub-issue:

• Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the permission under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and validation under Section 50-B would suggest that the validation was only for lands granted on market value.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, finding that the High Court had misconstrued the facts and had not considered the relevant legal precedents. The Court held that the assignment of land was not on collection of market value and that the revised assignment policy prohibited alienation. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Authorities and their use by the Court:

The Supreme Court relied on Government of AP and Ors. v. Gudepu Sailoo and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 625 to emphasize the relevance of the revised assignment policy and the prohibition on alienation. The Court also relied on Yadaiah and Anr. v. State of Telangana and Ors. (2023) 10 SCC 755 to highlight the condition of non-alienability in Form G and the revised policy issued under G.O.M.S. No.1406 dated 25.07.1958.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court had misconstrued the facts and had not considered the relevant legal precedents. The Court emphasized that the assignment of land was free of cost and that the revised assignment policy prohibited alienation. The Court also noted that the High Court had not considered the condition of non-alienability of the assigned lands.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The Court found that the High Court had misconstrued the factual matrix of the case by not recognizing that the assignment was free of cost and under the revised policy. The Court also emphasized the legal aspect, noting that the High Court had failed to consider the condition of non-alienability in the revised assignment policy and the relevant legal precedents.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the permissions under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and validation under Section 50-B would suggest that the validation was only for lands granted on market value. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, noting that the High Court had not considered the fact that the assignment was free of cost and that the revised policy of 1958 prohibited alienation.

The Court’s decision was based on a careful examination of the facts and the relevant legal provisions. The Court’s reasoning was clear and logical, and it was supported by the relevant legal precedents. The Court’s decision was also consistent with the purpose of the AP AL (POT) Act, which is to protect the rights of the assignees of government lands.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the High Court’s judgment:
“In these writ petitions, sale deeds were executed after obtaining permissions under Sec. 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950 and sale transactions have been validated under Sec. 50 -B. Since the respondents have not denied the fact of assignment of land on collection of market value and once permission is granted under Sec. 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale translation has been validated under Sec. 50 -B, which is validated only to the lands which were granted on market value , the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division are liable to be set -aside and they are accordingly set -aside.”

The Court also quoted from Yadaiah’s case:
“once it is determined that the regulatory regime which was in vogue and held the field as on 21.10.1961 will govern the assignments, then it also stands crystalised that the 1958 Circular as well as G .O.M. S. No. 1122 being in force at that time, are clearly applicable to the subject land”

The Court also noted from Yadaiah’s case:
“the provisions of the 1958 circular include a condition of non -alienability.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Lands assigned under the revised policy of 1958, which prohibited alienation, cannot be transferred.
• Permissions under Section 47 and validation under Section 50-B of the Telangana Tenancy Act do not validate the sale of assigned lands if the assignment was free of cost.
• The condition of non-alienability in Form G and the revised policy of 1958 must be considered in cases involving assigned lands.
• High Courts must consider relevant legal precedents and the factual matrix of the case when deciding on matters related to assigned lands.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the Writ Petitions expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Andhra Pradesh High Court for necessary action.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that lands assigned under the revised policy of 1958, which prohibited alienation, cannot be transferred, and that permissions under Section 47 and validation under Section 50-B of the Telangana Tenancy Act do not validate the sale of assigned lands if the assignment was free of cost. This judgment reinforces the principle that assigned lands are subject to the conditions of assignment, and that the condition of non-alienability must be strictly enforced. It also clarifies that the High Court must consider all relevant legal precedents and the factual matrix of the case when deciding on matters related to assigned lands.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that the High Court had misconstrued the facts and had not considered the relevant legal precedents. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the conditions of assignment of government lands and the need for a thorough consideration of all relevant factors in such cases.