Page 1

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  

1

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

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  

5

Page 6

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  

6

Page 7

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  

7

Page 8

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:-

8

Page 9

“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.  

9

Page 10

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  

10

Page 11

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 ]  

11

Page 12

…………………………….J New Delhi   [Abhay Manohar  Sapre] November 27, 2014

12

Page 13

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

13

Page 14

T

(Sukhbir Paul Kaur)                      (Indu Pokhriyal)    Court Master                        Court Master