Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Non-Alienability of Assigned Lands is Fundamental to Public Policy: Supreme Court on the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act, 1977

03 January 2025 3:39 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal judgment addressing the scope and application of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 ("AP AL (POT) Act"). The Court set aside a 2008 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that had erroneously permitted the transfer of government-assigned lands, underscoring the principle of non-alienability inherent in assigned lands under the state’s Revised Assignment Policy.

"Non-Alienability Forms the Core of Assigned Land Policies"

Whether government-assigned lands granted under the Laoni Rules, 1950, and governed by subsequent policies, can be transferred, and if they fall under the scope of the AP AL (POT) Act, 1977.

The appellants contended that the High Court's decision, which allowed the transfer based on permissions granted under the Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950, contradicted the AP AL (POT) Act’s core prohibition of alienation. The respondents argued that the lands were not subject to the AP AL (POT) Act, and transfers had been validated through due processes.

The appeals arose from a series of writ petitions challenging administrative orders that sought to resume lands classified as Kharij Khatta Sarkari in Survey Nos. 37 and 38/1, Khanamet Village, Ranga Reddy District. These lands were initially assigned under the Laoni Rules, 1950, and later governed by the 1958 Revised Assignment Policy, which explicitly barred their alienation.

In 2008, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petitions, reasoning that permissions granted under Sections 47 and 50-B of the Telangana Tenancy Act validated the sales. The state appealed this decision, arguing that assigned lands were granted free of cost and subject to strict non-alienability conditions.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

On Non-Alienability and the 1958 Policy

The Court emphasized that the Revised Assignment Policy of 1958, codified in G.O.M.S. No. 1406, prohibited the alienation of assigned lands. This prohibition was further reinforced by the AP AL (POT) Act, 1977, which barred the transfer of such lands, irrespective of subsequent permissions.

The Court highlighted its earlier rulings in Gudepu Sailoo v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Yadaiah v. State of Telangana, reiterating that:

"The condition of non-alienability attached to government-assigned lands is integral to the public interest and cannot be overridden by procedural validations under the Telangana Tenancy Act."

Error in High Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s judgment flawed, noting that it incorrectly assumed the lands were assigned on payment of market value, which was contrary to the state’s assignment policies. The Court observed:

"The judgment is founded on a misconception regarding the nature of the assignment and the prohibition against alienation embedded in the policy."

The Supreme Court set aside the 2008 judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in light of its observations and the binding precedents.

Upholding Public Policy and Land Assignment Rules

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the non-alienability principle as central to the governance of assigned lands in Andhra Pradesh. By remanding the matter, the Court has sought to ensure adherence to statutory mandates and the Revised Assignment Policy.

Date of Decision: January 2, 2025

Latest Legal News