Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order And Remands Assigned‑Lands Transfer Disputes For Fresh Consideration

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol heard appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging a common judgment dated 02.09.2008 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had allowed multiple writ petitions by purchasers of land in Khanamet village. The appeals raised the question whether lands granted patta under the Laoni Rules and related Government Orders were “assigned lands” within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (AP AL (POT) Act), and whether transfers validated under Sections 47 and 50‑B of the Telangana Tenancy Act could be treated as transfers on payment of market value.

The Court allowed the appeals in part, set aside the common High Court judgment and remanded the writ petitions for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had based its decision on a misconception that the respondents had not denied that the assignments were made on collection of market value, and it directed the High Court to re‑examine the matters in light of the appellants’ denials and binding precedents concerning the revised assignment policy. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the aforesaid circumstances, the common judgment dated 02.09.2008 which is under challenge in the first batch of appeals viz. Civil Appeal 1919-1922 of 2016 is set aside and the Writ Petition Nos.13227-13230 of 2005 are restored into their original numbers on the files of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for fresh consideration taking into account the fact that the appellants have denied the claim and contentions of the Writ Petitions that assignment of lands was on collection of market value. While considering the same on such remand, the High Court shall also take into account the decision of this Court in Gudepu Sailoo’s case and in Yadaiah’s case (supra), more particularly the condition of non-alienability contained in the revised assignment policy under GOMS No.1406 dated 25.07.1958.” The Court also recorded that the High Court had previously observed that “Since the respondents have not denied the fact of assignment of land on collection of market value and once permission is granted under Sec. 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale transaction has been validated under Sec. 50‑B... the impugned orders... are liable to be set‑aside.”

Background

The disputes arose from proceedings initiated by revenue authorities in respect of lands in Survey Nos. 37 and 38/1 of Khanamet village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Revenue officers had concluded that certain transfers contravened Section 3(2) of the AP AL (POT) Act and ordered resumption of the lands to Government custody. Purchasers who had acquired parcels through registered sale deeds challenged the revenue orders by filing writ petitions, contending that the AP AL (POT) Act did not apply because the lands had been assigned on payment of market value and transfers were later validated under Sections 47 and 50‑B of the Telangana Tenancy Act. The High Court allowed those writ petitions, reasoning that validation under Section 50‑B applied to lands “which were granted on market value” and set aside revenue orders.

The State appealed, arguing that the assignment patta certificates were issued under the revised assignment policy in G.O.M.S. No.1406 (25.07.1958), which provided for assignment free of market value and included a non‑alienability condition. The State relied on this Court’s precedents, including Government of A.P. v. Gudepu Sailoo and Yadaiah v. State of Telangana, to show that the 1958 policy and related rules governed the assignments and that the High Court erred by treating validations under Section 50‑B as conclusive of market‑value assignments. The Supreme Court found no material before the High Court to establish collection of market value and held that the impugned judgment rested on that misconception. It therefore remanded the writ petitions for fresh determination by the High Court, directing that those petitions be considered taking into account the appellants’ denials and the cited decisions, and requesting that the High Court decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within six months. The Supreme Court set aside connected orders rendered on the basis of the impugned common judgment and directed transmission of this judgment to the High Court Registry.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 5 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1919-1922 of 2016 and connected matters) Case Title: Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors. v. Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel (for the State/Appellants) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for respondents not specified in the judgment text provided