Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs $1. D Venugopal on 29 July, 2026
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
passCounsel for the Appellant(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. N ASHWANI KUMAR
2Date 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
4Counsel 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
5APHC010323082017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3588]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIXPRESENT
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, 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):
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
passCounsel 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
7The 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
8assigned 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
9purposes 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 1stNovember, 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 District1. 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 & Ors2. 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.
13III. 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 & Ors3. 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
Per Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment proposed by
my esteemed brothers. While concurring with rest of the views and
reasoning, I am unable to agree with the reasoning regarding change of
classification of land from “assigned” to “freehold” arrived at by my
esteemed brothers, and thus separately pen down my conclusion.
18
2. A detailed factual matrix of the present case at hand has been
rendered by my esteemed brothers in their opinion, and for the sake of
brevity, I am not replicating the same herein.
3. The question that fell for consideration in the case on hand can
be summarized as under:
Whether the land purchased by a landless poor person loses
the characteristics of assigned land in view of sub-Section
(5) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1997?
4. The Primary object of the A.P.Assigned Land (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter, referred to as, „the Act, 1977‟) is to
protect landless and homeless poor individuals from being exploited and
losing the agricultural lands or house sites assigned to them by the
Government. It normally makes all past and future transfers of assigned
land completely invalid. It is retroactive meaning it applies to sales that
occurred before its enactment.
5. However, Section 3(5) creates a clear exemption to this strict
Rule. For ready reference the same is extracted hereunder:
3(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.
6. To bring a transaction within the fold of Section 3(5) of the Act,
1977, the buyer shall meet three conditions:
19
1. The land was bought prior to January, 21, 1977
2. The buyer was a landless poor person who bought it in good
faith for a fair price
3. The buyer is still actively using the land for farming or living on it.
7. Though the Act, 1977 makes the transfer of assigned land
illegal, the exemption carved out under sub-section (5) of Section-3 of the
Act,1977 protects the purchase made by a landless poor person for a fair
price in good faith and who still actively using the land for the purpose for
which it was assigned.
8. Since the exception created under Section 3(5) of the Act, 1977
was circumscribed by the conditions referred to above, the intention of
the legislature in granting exception is very clear that they want to
continue the classification of the land as assigned land, else the word
landless poor person would not have been referred to therein. Moreover,
if it was the intention of the legislature to treat the assigned land as
„freehold‟, the condition that the purchaser shall not only be a landless
poor but shall still actively use the land for the purpose for which it had
originally been assigned would not have been imposed. The intention of
the legislature in creating exception is only to uphold the purchase made
by the bona fide landless poor purchaser for valuable consideration but
not to change the classification of the land from „assigned‟ to „freehold‟.
9. Treating assigned land purchased by a landless poor person as
freehold land would create a dangerous loophole. Assignees could easily
bypass restrictions by selling the property to other landless individuals,
20
through either real or fake transactions and after getting the status of the
land changed from „assigned‟ to „freehold‟, they would alienate the land to
wealthy buyers thereby defeating the purpose of the Act.
10. The Doctrine of Colorable Legislation dictates that one
cannot do indirectly what he is prohibited from doing directly. The Courts
must interpret statutes to fulfill the intent of the legislators, not destroy it.
11. It is fairly settled that laws must not be bypassed through
loopholes or indirect actions that destroy their original purpose. Treating
assigned land purchased by a landless poor as freehold land would
ultimately defeat the core purpose of the Act.
12. In the above view of the matter, though the sale meeting all the
requisite conditions of section 3(5) is protected from the rigour of the Act
such as resumption, however the exemption granted vide Sub-section (5)
of Section 3 of the Act cannot be stretched to the extent of stripping the
status of the land of being an „assigned land‟.
___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
29th June, 2026
RR
Uploaded on: 29th June, 2026.
Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether the order is Reportable/Non-reportable : Yes/ No
21
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
s
BSM
