LexGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus K. VARALAKSHMIAND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014) 11 S.C.R. 203 GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER A v. K. VARALAKSHMIAND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 2009) NOVEMBER 27, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] B Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977- s.3- Prohibition on transfer of assigned lands - On facts, prior to commencement of the Act, original C assignee sold land for consideration to landless poor person - His heirs sold it to plaintiff for valuable consideration - Resumption of land by Urban Development Authority - Challenged to - Held: Plaintiff proved the assignment deed and also led the evidence and proved that they are the bona D fide purchaser for valuable consideration - High Court rightly held 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. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: It is the clear case of the plaintiff-respondent that in 1971 their original assignee sold the land for consideration to 'DR', who was a landless poor person. The said 'DR' was in the cultivating possession of the F land and growing crop. After his death, his wife and sons succeeded the property and continuously remained in cultivating possession till 1982 when they sold the land to plaintiff in consideration of Rs.20,0001-. The plaintiff- respondents proved the assignment deed and also led G the evidence and proved that they are the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. No evidence whatsoever was adduced on behalf of the defendants- appellants in support of their defence. The finding 203 H 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A 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 Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is accepted. There is no reason to differ with the B findings recorded by the High Court. [Paras 12, 13, 14] [209-H; 210-A-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 2009. C From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 2784 of 1996. G. Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, C.K. Sucharita for the o Appellants. E V.V.S. Rao, John Mathew, Sridhar Potaraju, Vijayshree Patnaik, A. Mukunda Rao for the Respondents. * The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. 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 F the trial court in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs has been set aside. 2.lhe 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 G 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 defendanUappellant through a rough patta in R.C.No.4118 of 1961. She continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the H suit property as absolute owner, and by way of a registered sale • • GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. K. 205 VARALAKSHMI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] deed dated 12.1.1970 (Ex.A-2), she sold the suit property for A 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 B 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 c 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. D 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. Bangar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.