1. Similar questions of fact and law are arising in these writ petitions and so these three writ petitions are taken up for hearing.

2. This Court has heard Sri P. Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have title over the following properties:

"i) Petitioner in W.P.No.19530 of 2009: Title over the properties - Ac.4-16 cents in Sy.No.1116, Ac.3.78 cents in Sy.No.1117 and Ac.3-77 cents in Sy.No.1125 situated at Durgi Village and Mandal, Guntur District;

ii) Petitioner in W.P.No.19531 of 2009: Title over the properties situated in Sy.Nos.1121, 1131, 1115, 1122/1, 1124, 1126, 1127, 1132, 1133, 1091/03, 1092/1, 1138/1, 1141, 1136, 1146, 1092/2, 1091/A, 1172/1, 1065/2, 1064/5, 1091/2, 1064/5 and 1091/1 situated at Durgi Village and Mandal and also the lands in Survey Nos.706/2, 708, 707, 716/4, 716/3 and 716/2 situated at Obulesunipalli village of Durgi Mandal.

iii) The petitioner in W.P.No.19532 of 2009: Title over the properties – Ac.1-26 cents in Sy.No.1092/3/B, Ac.4-09 cents in Sy.No.1138/2, Ac.3-65 cents in Sy.No.1093/3, Ac.0-37 cents in Sy.No.1093/1 and Ac.1-75 cents in sy.No.1093/3 situated at Durgi Village and Mandal, Guntur District."

4. Pattadar passbooks were issued to them. They rely on the entries in the passbook and also the No.3 Cultivation Adangal, which shows their possession and enjoyment of the property. A notice under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the POT Act”) was issued to them stating that they are in possession of the assigned lands. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners case is based upon title deeds by which the property was lawfully purchased and that the lands in question were assigned in the year 1925. It is also argued that there is no condition prohibiting alienation and so the properties were alienated. It is argued that the condition regarding the non-alienation of assigned lands was only introduced on 25.07.1955 with G.O.Ms.No.1406. It is also urged that the Pattadar Passbooks were also issued to the writ petitioners after due enquiry. All the lands which the petitioners claiming title were assigned in 1925 itself and therefore, it is submitted that POT Act 1977 will not apply and that there is no condition prohibiting the alienation of the properties. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the POT Act 1977 will not apply at all and that the petitioners are entitled to the relief as claimed for.

5. In Writ Petition No.19531 of 2009 the copies of the resumption orders for the lands were furnished to the writ petitioners pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.2013 of 2009. Basing on the finding in the said writ petition the statutory appeal before the RDO was filed in 2009. But no orders have been passed till date. According to the learned counsel, therefore, this Court can hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the case law on the subject, which is annexed in all the three writ petitions, is in favour of the writ petitioners and the law is still good law. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Shyam Sunder v Government of A.P., Revenue (Assignment) Department and Others2001 (6) ALT 128 [LQ/TelHC/2001/756] and A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Unin, Chittoor District v Joint Collector, Chittoor and Others2008 (1) ALD 29. [LQ/APHC/2007/93] Learned counsel points out that both these judgments support the stand taken by the writ petitioners.

6. Learned Government Pleader argued in line with counter affidavits filed. In view of the case law relied upon and the positive assertion of the Government that the lands involved in these writ petitions were assigned long prior to 1925 an opportunity was given to the learned Government Pleader to secure the copies of the assignment orders. Despite his best efforts and constant interaction with the officials the Government Pleader could not get copies of the assignments. He could secure copies of the two registers only showing the assignments of various extents of land 1925 and thereafter. These registers contain a written endorsement at certain places stating “no alienation”. Other than this the respondents could not produce the assignment orders. Despite this the learned Government Pleader valiantly tried to defend the action of the State.

COURT:

7. This Court notices that the assigned land is defined under Section 2(1) of the POT Act, 1977 is as follows:

“Section 2 (1): “assigned land” means lands or house sites assigned by the Government to the landless or homeless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word “assigned” shall be constructed accordingly.”

8. Therefore, it is clear that only if lands are assigned subject to the condition of non-alienation they can be resumed by following the procedure stipulated in this Act. Admittedly, the respondents, who relied upon the provisions of this Act, could not produce copies of the original assignments to enable this Court to decide the issue. No other proof was filed.

9. In addition, two judgments that are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are still good law and continue to hold the field. As noticed in the said judgments G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958 was issued in supersession of other rules and a new rule was introduced stating that lands assigned by the Government cannot be transferred. It is very clearly held that such a contention would only affect the lands which were assigned subsequent to or after 25.07.1958. In the other judgment of the learned single Judge there is a reference to G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, under which a condition was introduced that the lands assigned shall not be alienated. Therefore, the learned single Judge held since the assignment in that case was prior to this date, the condition of non-alienation did not apply.

10 Whether it is 1954 or 1958 the fact remains that two single Judge’s noticed that for alienations prior to 1950s the condition of non-alienation will not apply. In addition, the registers produced by the learned Government Pleader merely show endorsements made to the following affect “no alienation”. These were only made in the registers produced at certain placed in the book. It is not clear such condition was actually imposed in the assigned order. In the absence of any such document these random unsigned and undated endorsements cannot be relied upon by the State for denying relief to the writ petitioners.

11. This Court also notices that in all these three writ petitions the writ petitioners are relying upon the Pattadar passbooks etc., that were issued to them. As per the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act”) any person acquiring any right in the property is obliged to issue a notice under Section 4 of the ROR Act for making necessary corrections in the Record of Rights. A detailed procedure is provided under Section 4, Section 5 and the Rules for making necessary changes in the Record of Rights. Notices are to be issued to all persons, whose names are entered in the Record of Rights, who are interested or affected by the amendment or any other person whom the MRO believes to be interested and affected thereby. After considering the objections, necessary amendments will be carried out. Therefore, the issuance of the Pattadar passbooks and modifications of record of rights is not an empty exercise or an empty formality. It is for this reason Section 6 of the Act states that every entry in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. In the case on hand the respondent-State did not rebut the presumption in favour of the writ petitioners.

12. The writ petitioners are asserting title to the property through registered sale deeds. If the Government is of the opinion that it had superior title, the summary procedure under the POT Act, 1977 cannot be resorted. The writ petitioners are claiming derivative title from the original assignees of 1925. In a case of this nature, this Court is of the firm opinion that in view of the stand taken by the writ petitioners the documents filed and the legality attached to the same, the respondents cannot take resort to the summary procedure under the POT Act. As far as the appeal filed before the RDO by the petitioner in W.P.No.19531 of 2009, this Court notices that till date no orders have been pronounced on the appeal, keeping the same pending is not called for. Even otherwise this Court is of the opinion that in view of the issues raised this Court can overlook its self imposed restrictions in case of the existence of alternative remedy and decide the matter on its merits. There is also gross failure of the rules of natural justice. The High Court in W.P.No.2013 of 2009 directed the Tahsildar to furnish the copies of the said orders i.e., the alleged orders of resumption. It is clearly averred in the appeal filed, after the orders were furnished, that prior to the alleged resumption orders no notice or opportunity was issued to the appellant and that even as on date petitioner continues to be in possession of the property. Therefore, for this reason the pendency of the appeal before the RDO need not deter this Court. A quietus needs to be given to these issues. The RDO is directed to close the Appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.19531 of 2009.

13. For all the above mentioned reasons the writ petition are allowed and the proceedings initiated under the POT Act, 1977 are set aside. The respondents are directed not to forcibly evict the writ petitioners from the lands in their possession. Their possession is protected. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.