Supreme Court Reverses High Court Order, Upholds Resumption of Assigned Lands in Andhra Pradesh.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors vs Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors, reversed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to set aside orders resuming the assigned lands in question. The Supreme Court's judgment clarified the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and the condition of non-alienability attached to lands assigned under the revised assignment policy.

Case Background: The case revolved around land parcels in Survey Nos. 37 and 38/1 of Khanamet village classified as Kharij Khatta Sarkari. These lands were assigned to individuals under the revised assignment policy laid down in G.O.M.S. No.1406 Revenue Department dated 25.07.1958. Subsequent purchasers of these lands, including the respondents, challenged the resumption orders passed by the revenue authorities, arguing that the lands were not assigned lands and permissions were granted under the Telangana Tenancy Act for their transfer.

High Court Decision: The High Court, relying on the fact that the permissions were granted under the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale transactions were validated, set aside the resumption orders. It presumed that the assignments were made on the collection of market value, and thus, the restrictions on transfer under the AP AL (POT) Act would not apply.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision. It found that the High Court's judgment was based on a misconception that the appellants (revenue authorities) had not denied the assignment of land on the collection of market value. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellants had, in fact, clarified that the lands were assigned under the revised assignment policy of 1958, which implied assignment free of market value and with a condition of non-alienability.

The Supreme Court highlighted the following key points: The High Court's presumption of assignment on market value was erroneous. The appellants had clearly stated that the assignment was made under the revised assignment policy, which involved assignment free of cost, and the condition of non-alienability attached to the assigned lands under the revised assignment policy was overlooked.

The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgments in Government of AP and Ors. v. Gudepu Sailoo and Ors. and Yadaiah and Anr. v. State of Telangana and Ors. to emphasize that the revised assignment policy prohibited the alienation of assigned lands.

The applicability of the Telangana Tenancy Act was misinterpreted. The provisions of the Telangana Tenancy Act related to permissions and validation of transfers could not override the specific prohibition on transfer under the AP AL (POT) Act, which was applicable to government-assigned lands.

Based on these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the correct legal position regarding the assignment policy and the condition of non-alienability. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the decisions in Gudepu Sailoo's case and Yadaiah's case, particularly the condition of non-alienability under the revised assignment policy. SEO Information

Coram: Justice C. T. Ravikumar, and Justice Sanjay Karol
Between: Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors vs Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 02-01-2025