IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

***

WRIT APPEAL NO: 239/2017

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

HYDERABAD, NOW AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR,, ANANTHAPURAMU,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, PENUKONDA DIVISION,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

$1. D VENUGOPAL, S/O.D.NARAYANAPPA, R/O.D.NO.1 -1709,

MUDIGUBBA POST AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU

DISTRICT.

2. A NAGAMANI, W/O.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, OCC:

CULTIVATION, R/O.MARAVAKOTHAPALLI VILLAGE,

LALCPALLI POST, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WAMP 506 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased to suspend the operation of the order in W.P.No. 22912 of

2016 dated 20-01-2017, pending disposal of the above writ appeal and

pass

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N ASHWANI KUMAR

2

Date of Judgment pronounced on: 29-06-2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No

May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No

Of the Judgment?

3

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

+ WRIT APPEAL No.239 of 2017

% Dated: 29-06-2026

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD, NOW AT VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR,, ANANTHAPURAMU,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, PENUKONDA

DIVISION, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

$1. D VENUGOPAL, S/O.D.NARAYANAPPA, R/O.D.NO.1 -

1709, MUDIGUBBA POST AND MANDAL,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

2. A NAGAMANI, W/O.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, OCC:

CULTIVATION, R/O.MARAVAKOTHAPALLI VILLAGE,

LALCPALLI POST, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WAMP 506 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation

of the order in W.P.No. 22912 of 2016 dated 20-01-2017,

pending disposal of the above writ appeal and pass

4

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N ASHWANI KUMAR

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

Cases referred: 1. 1987(1) APLJ 171,

2. (1987) 2 ALT 253 &

3. (2014) 15 SCC 591

5

APHC010323082017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3588]

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT APPEAL NO: 239/2017

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred

against the order dt.20-01-2017 passed in WP.N.22912 of 2016.

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

HYDERABAD, NOW AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GU NTUR

DISTRICT.

2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR,, ANANTHAPURAMU,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, PENUKONDA DIVISION,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. D VENUGOPAL, S/O.D.NARAYANAPPA, R/O.D.NO.1 -1709,

MUDIGUBBA POST AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU

DISTRICT.

2. A NAGAMANI, W/O.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, OCC:

CULTIVATION, R/O.MARAVAKOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, LALCPALLI

POST, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

6

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WAMP 506 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased to suspend the operation of the order in W.P.No. 22912 of

2016 dated 20-01-2017, pending disposal of the above writ appeal and

pass

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N ASHWANI KUMAR

Date of Reserved : 19.06.2026

Date of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026

Date of Upload : 29.06.2026

7

The Court made the following Judgment:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar)

Heard Sri D. Yathindra Dev, the learned Special Government

Pleader, appearing in the office of the Learned Advocate General, for the

appellants and Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, the Learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

for the respondents.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh has a long standing policy of

assigning, free of cost, land to landless poor people. To ensure that the said

land remains with such assignees, a condition of non -alienation is

incorporated in all the pattas, granting assignment of land to landless poor

people. In fact, the Board Standing Orders, under which such land is

assigned, also contain a stipulation that land assigned, free of cost, to poor

people cannot be alienated by the assignee, in any manner. However, there

were a large number of alienations, in violation of this restriction.

3. In order to curb such violations and to ensure that the land

remains with the landless poor as assignees, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature

had enacted the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)

Act, 1977 [for short “the Act”]. This Act, also obtained the assent of the

President of India.

4. The term “assigned land” was defined in Section 2(1) of the Act,

to be land assigned by the Government to landless poor persons with a

restriction of non-alienation. Section 3 of the Act, prohibits transfer of such

8

assigned lands and mandates that any transfer made in contravention of such

restriction or such prohibition would be null and void. Section 4, of the Act,

which provides for the consequences of violation of Section 3 of the Act,

empowers the appropriate authority to evict the person in possession, where

a sale, in contravention of Section 3, takes place and to evict the transferee,

who is in possession. The authority would also be empowered to restore the

land to the original assignee. However, if the land is again alienated, it would

be taken over by the Government for assignment to some other landless poor

person. Section 5 of the Act, prohibits registration of assigned lands. Section

6 of the Act, 1977 exempts certain transactions from the Act. The other

provisions from Sections 7 to 12 of the Act, 1977 would not be relevant for the

purpose of this Judgment.

5. The present issue arises out of the interpretation of Section 3 of

the Act, 1977, which reads as follows:-

“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 have 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-

sections (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

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

9

purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such

commencement."

6. In the year 2001, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of

Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in its Judgment, dated

18.12.2001, in Writ Appeal No.1920 of 2001, had held that any transaction

falling within the ambit of Section 3(5) of the Act, 1977 would at best validate

that particular transaction but the land would still continue to be within the

ambit of the Act as an assigned land.

7. This interpretation of Section 3(5) of the Act was doubted by

another Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in

its order, dated 06.03.2017, in Writ Appeal No.239 of 2017, and referred the

matter to a Full Bench.

8. The question referred for the decision of this Full Bench is as

follows:-

"Does purchase of land by a landless poor person in good faith and for

valuable consideration, prior to the commencement of 1977 Act and on

fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in Section 3(5), confer title on the

purchaser including the right of alienation, or does it continue to remain

assigned land attracting the prohibition of Section 3 of the Act"?”

9. Sri D. Yathindra Dev, the learned Special Government Pleader, in

the office of the Learned Advocate General, for the State, contended that the

Act had been enacted for ensuring that the assigned land, would always

remain with the landless poor persons to whom the land had been assigned

and any interpretation whereby the said land is taken out of the purview of the

Act, would be in clear violation of the spirit and letter of the Act. For this

10

purpose, the learned Special Government Pleader has taken us to the

statement of objects and reasons, which reads as follows:-

“The Government have launched, with effect from the 1

st

November, 1969, a

special crash programme for assignment of Government waste lands to the

landless poor persons. The rules regarding assignment of land and the

conditions incorporated in 'D' form pattas prohibit alienation of such lands

and provide for its resumption as well as regrant to eligible persons.

However, past experience has down that substantial extents assigned to

land less poor persons have been actually alienated and are in possession of

well persons who have purchased such lands, efforts made for assigning

large extent of lands to landless poor persons are going waste. With a view

to enforce the objective more effectively, it is considered that a protective

legislation is necessary so as to prescribe a punishment to persons who

have purchased such lands. Further,, there have been requests, from time to

Time, for enacting a protective legislation against transfers and alienation of

assigned lands on the model of Legislation existing in regard to the

Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibits

alienation of lands and provide for restoration of such lands to the assignees.

It has therefore been decided to undertake legislation immediately to prohibit

alienation of lands assigned to landless persons and to provide for

punishment of purchasers of such lands.”

10. The learned Special Government Pleader would also rely upon

the Judgment of a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

in the case of Dharma Reddy Vs. Sub-Collector Bodhan, Nizamabad

District Vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, Nizamabad District

1

. In this Judgment,

the Full Bench was called upon to decide whether the Act takes into its

account even transfers prior to 21.01.1977, when the ordinance which

subsequently became the Act, came into force. The Full Bench, after

considering the language of Section 3(1) of the Act, had held that Section 3(1)

of the Act, not only prohibits transfer of assigned lands after the

commencement of the Act, but also declares that all transfers of such

assigned land, which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act, shall

also be null and void. He would contend that in such a situation, the question

1

1987(1) APLJ 171

11

of any exemption being given for any kind of transaction would not arise. He

would also rely upon the Judgment delivered by a Learned Single Judge of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of

Majjari Pullanna Vs. Sub-Collector, Nandyal & Ors

2

. In this Judgment, the

Learned Single Judge while interpreting Section 3(5) of the Act, had taken the

view that Section 3(5) is meant to restrain the transferee-poor person from

subsequent alienation of the land and that the said land should be retained for

cultivation or as a house site.

11. Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would firstly contend that the Judgment of the Full Bench in the

case of Dharma Reddy Vs. Sub-Collector Bodhan, Nizamabad District, did not

interpret the scope and effect of Section 3(5) of the Act, except to hold, in

paragraph No.11 of the said Judgment, that it would be open to the petitioner

in any particular case to demonstrate that the land of such a person falls

within the exemption provided under Section 3(5) of the Act. The Learned

Senior Counsel would also contend that the Judgment of the Learned Single

Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the

case of Majjari Pullanna Vs. Sub-Collector, Nandyal & Ors would not be

binding on the present Bench as this is a Full Bench of the High Court. We

are in agreement with both contentions of the learned senior counsel.

Consideration of the Court:-

2

(1987) 2 ALT 253

12

12. At the cost of repetition, Section 3(5) of the Act, is reproduced

below.

“Section 3: Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands:-

(1)…

(2) …

(3) …

(4) …

(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."

13. Under Section 2(1) of the Act, assigned land has been defined to

mean land which is subject to a condition of non-alienation. Section 3(1)

prohibits the transfer of such assigned land to any person. Section 3(2)

reinforces this prohibition by stipulating that such transfer in any of the

methods set out in sub-section 2 are also prohibited. Thereupon, Section 3(3)

mandates that any transfer made in contravention of 3(1) & 3(2) would be

deemed to be null and void. Section 3(4) extends this prohibition even to any

decree or order of a civil Court or the award or order of any other authority.

However, Section 3(5) grants exemption to assigned land in certain

circumstances from the provisions of Section 3. An analysis of Section 3(5)

would reveal that the following conditions are required to be complied for any

assigned land to fall within the ambit of Section 3 (5):-

I. The assigned land should have been purchased by a landless poor

person.

II. Such purchase should be in good faith and for valuable consideration.

13

III. This purchase can be from the original assignee or any transferee of

such original assignee.

IV. The said purchase should have been prior to the commencement of

the Act.

V. The said landless poor person should be in possession of such land on

the date of the commencement of the Act.

14. To reiterate, only those lands which had been alienated prior to

the commencement of the Act and purchased by a landless poor person, in

good faith and for valuable consideration, who remains in possession of such

land, at the commencement of the Act, would be exempt from the provisions

of Section 3 of the Act.

15. Section 4 of the Act, which provides for consequences of breach

of Section 3 stipulates that the provisions of Section 4 would come into play

only when the provision of sub-section 1 of Section 3 has been contravened,

in respect of an assigned land. Section 3(5) stipulated that any purchase of

land by a landless poor person, for valuable consideration, before the

commencement of the Act, would be outside the scope of Section 3 itself. In

such circumstances, Section 4 would not be applicable to any land falling

within the purview of Section 3(5) of the Act.

16. The language of Section 3(5) makes it clear that the object of

exemption is not the alienation or the assignee or the transferee, but the

assigned land itself. The inclusion of the word “transferee” in Section 3(5) has

a certain significance. The legislature was not only condoning the transfer of

14

assigned land to a person who is not a landless poor person, but was also

providing for exemption to even such transfers. The language in Section 3(5)

is quite clear and can only be interpreted to mean that any assigned land,

purchased prior to the Act, by a landless poor person, irrespective of whether

the transfer is from the original assignee or a transferee, who is not a landless

poor person, falls outside the purview of Section 3 of the Act. There is also no

future limitation, in the provision, in terms of time or the number of

transactions, of further transfer after the Act came into effect. This would lead

to the conclusion that the said assigned land falls outside the prohibitions and

consequences contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and becomes and

remains freely transferrable land.

17. This view of the Court is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr Vs.

K. Varalakshmi & Ors

3

. In this case, the original assignee sold the land to

another landless poor person on 12.01.1970. The legal heirs of such

transferee sold the said land, on 27.01.1982, to a person who was not a

landless poor person. This land was sought to be taken over by the State on

the ground that there was a violation of the condition of non-alienation. This

action was resisted by the transferee, in possession, who had purchased the

land in the year 1982. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held in favour

of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the necessary

proceedings for taking over the land had not been conducted and secondly,

on the ground that Section 3(5) of the Act, makes an exception in relation to

3

(2014) 15 SCC 591

15

assigned lands which had been purchased, prior to the commencement of the

Act, by another landless poor person. Paragraph Nos.11 to 13, of the said

Judgment are relevant and are extracted here under:-

“11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that sub-sections

(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

landless 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 respondent-plaintiff that in 1971 their original

assignee SagirajuBangaramma sold the land for a consideration to Durga

Ramalingeswara Rao, who was a landless poor person. The said

Ramalingeswara Rao, was in the cultivating possession of the land and

growingcrop. 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 respondent-plaintiff 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 appellant-defendants 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. Hence, we do not find any reason to differ with the

findings recorded by the High Court. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and

is liable to be dismissed."

18. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the

nature of the land does not change and the land would continue to be

assigned land for the purposes of the Act. This contention cannot be

accepted. The main provision in the Act is Section 3 holds that any alienation

of assigned land either before or after the commencement of the Act is null

and void. Section 4 which provides for the consequence and steps that can be

taken by the appropriate authority, is conditioned upon Section 3 being

applicable to such land. Once Section 3(5) takes any assigned land outside

16

the purview of Section 3, the consequences provided in Section 4 would not

be applicable to such a land. Consequently, such land purchased by the

landless poor person, would automatically fall outside the purview of the Act

itself as the prohibition and consequence of prohibition of non-alienation and

consequence of violation of such non-alienation would not be applicable to the

land at all. Once, the land itself, has been taken out of the purview of Section

3, without any limitation, in terms of time or transactions, the said exemption is

for all time. All or any further transactions would also be protected from the

consequences of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. As the land is freely

transferable, taking a legalistic and semantic approach of holding that the land

would remain, “Assigned land”, would be contrary to Section 3(5) itself.

Further, the definition of assigned land, set out in Section 2(1) applies to land

assigned with a condition of non-alienation. Once such a condition has been

omitted, by virtue of Section 3(5), the land cannot be treated as assigned

land.

19. Another aspect, that needs to be considered is the fact that the

landless poor person, who had purchased the land has paid, proper

consideration for the land. This factor appears to have been taken into

consideration, by the legislature, which removed the said assigned land from

the purview of the Act itself, as a landless poor person had expended hard

earned money and the land was transferred to a landless poor person.

20. For all the above reasons, the reference is answered in the

following manner:

17

“The purchase of land by a landless poor person in good

faith and for valuable consideration, prior to the

commencement of 1977 Act and on fulfillment of the

conditions stipulated in Section 3(5), confer title on the

purchaser including the right of alienation, and such land

would not continue to remain assigned land attracting the

prohibition of Section 3 of the Act.”

21. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is remitted back to the Division

Bench, for adjudication. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date:29.06.2026

BSM

Uploaded on: 29

th

June, 2026.

Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/ No

Whether the order is Reportable/Non-reportable : Yes/ No

18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT APPEAL No:239/2017

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

29.06.2026

LR copy marked

BSM