GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR. Vs. K. VARALAKSHMI & ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 3673 of 2009, Judgment Date: Nov 27, 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3673 OF 2009
Government of Andhra Pradesh
and another ...Appellant (s)
versus
K. Varalakshmi and others ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.:
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby
appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed and the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs has been
set aside.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the suit schedule property
admeasuring about five acre in Survey No.71/3 of Paradesipalem was
Poramboke land. One Sagiraju Bangaramma was in possession and enjoyment of
the said land by raising agricultural crops since 1950. By virtue of her
possession, the suit property was assigned to her by the first
defendant/appellant through a rough patta in R.C.No.4118 of 1961. She
continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as
absolute owner, and by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.1.1970 (Ex.A-
2), she sold the suit property for a valuable consideration to one Durga
Ramalingeswara Rao. Subsequently, said Ramalingeswara Rao died and after
his death his wife Durga Venkata Ratnam and his sons succeeded to the suit
schedule property, who by sale deed dated 27.1.1982 (Ex.A-1) sold the suit
land to the plaintiffs for valuable consideration and passed on the
possession thereof.
3. In March, 1988, the second defendant/appellant being Visakhapatnam
Urban Development Authority (in short, 'VUDA') fixed boundary demarcations
to a part of the plaintiffs land, purporting to act under the directions of
the District Collector of Visakhapatnam. The plaintiffs being absolute
owners and possessors of the land got issued notice under Section 80 of the
Civil Procedure Code requesting defendants to desist from interfering with
the plaintiffs' possession. Thereafter, plaintiffs instituted a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction.
4. It was averred in the plaint that the original assignee i.e. S.
Bangaramma was a landless poor, who sold the suit land in the year 1970 to
another landless poor Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, who purchased it in good
faith for valuable consideration much earlier to the enactment of A.P.
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (in short, "Act of
1977"). The heirs of the said Ramalingeswara Rao in turn sold the suit
land to landless poor, who are the plaintiffs-respondents herein. Hence,
both the sale transactions are protected under Section 3(5) of the
aforesaid Act. If the Government wants to exercise its right of resumption
it is bound by law to issue a show cause notice to the persons who obtained
right and interest in the said land and to the said persons in actual
possession of the land.
5. The first Appellant-defendant in its written statement opposing the
suit denied assignment of land to Sagiraju Bangaramma. Defendant contended
that the land assigned to the plaintiff's predecessors in title Bangaramma
is not the suit land. It is only the land covered by Survey No.71/10 which
is only Ac.4-94 cents. As the land was assigned subject to certain
conditions and violation of such conditions by the assignee would entitle
to resume the land assigned even suo motu without any notice or payment of
any compensation. Even the land in Survey No.71/10 which was assigned to
Bangaramma was cancelled vide Rc.No.904/87/Dt.30-4-87 for violation of the
conditions as she failed to bring the lands under cultivation. The VUDA -
defendant no.2 pleaded for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the
assigned land is not alienable but is only heritable. Any alienations made
are illegal, void and unenforceable.
6. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit land is an
assigned land and Sagiraju Bangaramma- the assignee had no right to
alienate the property. With regard to relief of injunction, the trial
court observed that as there is no resumption of the assigned land by
defendant no.1 and, moreover, when the plaintiff is not entitled for the
declaration he cannot be granted any injunction which is an equitable
relief. Moreover, the plaintiff has not established his possession over
the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit as no
documentary evidence or oral evidence was adduced on his behalf in that
regard.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the plaintiffs
preferred appeal before the High Court, which decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs led in oral and documentary evidence
and proved Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, and the Government did not examine any
responsible officer nor marked relevant documents to demonstrate the
assignment in favour of Bangaramma. Learned Single Judge of the High Court
observed as under:
"20. Unfortunately the court below found that the plaintiffs could
establish the transaction between the legal representatives of
Ramalingeswara Rao and the plaintiffs, but the transaction between
Bangaramma and Ramalingeswara Rao could not be established. This view of
the court below cannot be ccepted for two reasons; firstly the plaintiffs
successfully proved the transaction between Bangaramma and Ramalingeswara
Rao through Ex.A2 and also proved the transaction between the legal
representatives of Ramalingeswara Rao and the plaintiffs through Ex.A-1.
Therefore, the plaint averments, evidence of plaintiffs and the documents
are quire consistent.
xxxxx
26. The cumulative effect is that there is no evidence whatsoever,
whether oral or documentary, on behalf of the defendants and the plaintiffs
could successfully prove their case by examining PW's 1 & 2 and by marking
Ex.A-1 and A-2. When that is the evidence on record on behalf of the
plaintiffs and no evidence whatsoever on behalf of the defendants and
nothing contra could be elicited by the second defendant from the cross-
examination of PW.1 and 2, I am of the view that the Court below was in
error in holding that the plaintiffs, though could prove the sale
transaction between the legal representatives of said Ramalingeswara Rao
and the plaintiffs, could not prove the sale transaction and the consequent
title of the vendors of the plaintiffs."
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It has been pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that the
schedule property measuring 5 acres in S.No.71/3 was in the possession and
enjoyment of one Smt. Sagi Raju Bangaramma since 1960 and she had been
cultivating the said land since then. She had also been assigned a rough
patta for the said land in R.C. No.4118/61. It has been contended on
behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs that the said Survey No.71/3 was
subsequently sub-divided into Survey No.71/10 and the respondents are in
possession of the said land. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from
the successors of the deceased Durga Ramalingeshwar Rao for a valuable
consideration of Rs.20,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 27.1.1982 and
since then they have been cultivating on it. It is pleaded by the
plaintiffs that they were landless poor persons as contemplated under
Section 3(5) of the Act of 1977. Respondents have denied that there was
any show cause notice dated 24.3.1983 issued to the original possessor of
the land in S.No.71/3 and that subsequent to the said show cause notice the
assignment of the said land was cancelled on 15.5.1983 for violation of any
condition of the assignment.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the
respondents have established by oral as well as documentary evidence that
the transfer of the land from Sagi Raju Bangaramma to Durga Ramalingeshwar
Rao was prior to the commencement of the Act of 1977 and that he was a
landless poor person as contemplated under Section 3(5) of the said Act.
Learned counsel further submitted that even if the aforesaid Act is
considered to be retrospective in effect, it would be irrelevant for the
purposes of this case as the transfer is clearly protected by Section 3(5)
of the Act.
10. Before appreciating the rival contentions made by the learned
counsel, we would like to refer Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, which is the sheet anchor of the
appellants' case. Section 3 reads as under:-
"Section 3: Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands (1) Where before or
after the commencement of this Act, any land has been assigned by the
Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a
house site, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law
for the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document
relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed
never to have been transferred, and accordingly no right or title in such
assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.
(2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no
person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease,
mortgage, exchange or otherwise.
(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions
of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void.
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the
nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of
a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.
(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was
purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable
consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the
commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for
purposes of cultivation or as a house site on the date of such
commencement."
11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that sub-
section (1) to (4) applies to all cases where the assignment of lands was
made either before or after the commencement of the Act by the Government
to a land less poor person for the purpose of cultivation or a house site.
However, sub-section (5) of Section 3 makes an exception in cases where the
land has been so assigned has been purchased by another landless poor
person in good faith or for valuable consideration from the original
assignee or the transferee prior to the commencement of the Act.
12. It is the clear case of the plaintiff respondent that in 1971 their
original assignee Sagiraju Bangaramma sold the land for consideration to
Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, who was a landless poor person. The said
Ramalingeswara Rao, was in the cultivating possession of the land and
growing crop. After his death, his wife Smt. Venkata Ratnam and sons
succeeded the property and continuously remained in cultivating possession
till 1982 when they sold the land to plaintiff in consideration of
Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff-respondents proved the assignment deed and also
led the evidence and proved that they are the bona fide purchaser for
valuable consideration. Curiously enough, no evidence whatsoever was
adduced on behalf of the defendants-appellants in support of their defence,
which has been rightly noticed by the High Court.
13. In the background of these facts, we are fully in agreement with the
finding recorded by the High Court that the transactions made in favour of
the plaintiff and his predecessors are fully saved by sub-section (5) of
Section 3 of the Act.
14. Hence, we do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded
by the High Court.
15. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
..................................J.
[ M.Y. Eqbal ]
..................................J
[Abhay Manohar Sapre]
New Delhi
November 27, 2014
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3673/2009
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K. VARALAKSHMI & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Appellant(s)
Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.
Mr. John Mathew,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
T
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Pokhriyal)
Court Master Court Master
For the Latest Updates
Join Now