Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Andhra Pradesh Land Assignment Dispute

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a significant land assignment dispute in Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Others vs. Mohd. Syeed Ather & Others. The Court set aside a 2008 judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had favored the land purchasers, ordering a fresh hearing and reconsideration of the matter. This decision impacts multiple landowners and highlights the complexities of assigned land policies in Andhra Pradesh.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to assigned lands in Survey No. 37 and 38/1 in Khanamet village, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. These lands were classified as Kharij Khatta Sarkari (government lands) and were assigned to individuals under the Andhra Pradesh government’s land assignment policy.

The dispute arose when the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) issued proceedings in 2003 and 2005, holding that purchasers of these lands had violated Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (AP AL (PoT) Act). The authorities ordered the resumption of these lands by the government.

Legal Proceedings Before the High Court

Several land purchasers, who had acquired portions of the assigned lands through sale deeds, filed writ petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2005. They challenged the RDO’s orders, arguing that:

The assigned lands were not covered by the AP AL (PoT) Act.
They had lawfully purchased the land and obtained proper permissions under Section 47 and validation under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Multiple transactions had taken place over the years, and the lands had been duly mutated in their names.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on September 2, 2008, setting aside the RDO’s orders and allowing the sale transactions. The state of Andhra Pradesh appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Andhra Pradesh)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by senior counsel, contended:

The High Court’s decision was based on an incorrect presumption that the assigned lands were granted on the collection of market value.
The assignment of these lands was made free of cost under the Revised Assignment Policy of 1958, which expressly prohibited alienation.
The High Court failed to consider the prohibition of transfer under Section 3 of the AP AL (PoT) Act.
The court did not properly examine the assignment conditions under the relevant government orders, particularly G.O.M.S. No. 1406, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1958.

Arguments by the Respondents (Land Purchasers)

The respondents countered:

Their purchase transactions were valid and had been approved by revenue authorities.
The lands in question had changed hands multiple times since 1965, and they had acquired lawful title.
The permission granted under Section 47 and validation under Section 50-B of the Telangana Tenancy Act indicated that these were not assigned lands subject to restrictions.
The authorities had permitted sales, and thus the government could not now claim ownership.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

1. Misinterpretation of Land Assignment Terms

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s ruling was based on an incorrect presumption that the lands were assigned on the collection of market value.

“There is no material on record to establish that these lands were assigned upon payment of market value. The revised assignment policy of 1958 clearly states that assigned lands are free of cost and non-transferable.”

2. Violation of the AP AL (PoT) Act

The Court reaffirmed the principle that government-assigned lands cannot be transferred without permission:

“The prohibition on alienation under Section 3 of the AP AL (PoT) Act applies, and transactions in violation of this provision are legally void.”

3. Impact of Previous Supreme Court Decisions

The Court cited Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gudepu Sailoo (2000) and Yadaiah vs. State of Telangana (2023), which reinforced that assigned lands remain government property and cannot be freely sold.

4. Need for Fresh Consideration

Given the High Court’s incorrect assumption and its failure to examine relevant government orders, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, taking into account the prohibition on alienation in the Revised Assignment Policy of 1958 and relevant Supreme Court precedents.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s 2008 judgment:

“The High Court’s order dated 02.09.2008 is quashed. Writ Petition Nos. 13227-13230 of 2005 are restored for fresh consideration. The High Court shall expeditiously hear and decide the matter within six months.”

Conclusion

This ruling reiterates the legal restrictions on assigned land sales and emphasizes the importance of government policies in land assignment cases. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that such lands remain protected for their intended purpose and cannot be freely alienated without proper authorization.

Petitioner Name: Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Others.
Respondent Name: Mohd. Syeed Ather & Others.
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Khanamet, Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 02-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: revenue-divisional-o-vs-mohd.-syeed-ather-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-01-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category