Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 1919-1922 of 2016]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors. vs. Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 1919-1922 of 2016], delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, concerning disputes under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, focusing on land assignment, transfer restrictions, and market value collections.
Facts and Background
The case arose from multiple writ petitions challenging the proceedings initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act. The respondents, including Mohd. Syeed Ather, were assignees of land originally assigned under the Act, which prohibits unauthorized transfer of such lands. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division, initiated action against alleged illegal transfers and non-payment of market value for the assigned lands.
The controversy centered on whether the lands in question were subject to transfer restrictions and whether the appellants had correctly collected market value for such lands. The respondents contended that the assignments were valid and that the RDO’s actions were unjustified.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
The interpretation and application of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, particularly regarding the validity of land assignments and transfers.
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer’s proceedings and orders were legally sustainable.
The correctness of the High Court’s judgments in the writ petitions challenging the RDO’s actions.
The principles governing collection of market value and the consequences of non-compliance.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court found that the lower courts and the Revenue Divisional Officer had misunderstood key aspects of the Act, especially concerning the denial or acceptance of land assignments and the obligation to collect market value. It held that the appellants had not denied the fact of assignment but had challenged the legality of certain transfers and the adequacy of market value collection.
The Court emphasized that the statutory provisions aim to regulate land transfers to protect assigned lands from unauthorized alienation and ensure proper valuation and compensation to the government.
The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s judgments were based on misconceptions about the facts and law, leading to erroneous conclusions. It underscored the need for strict compliance with the Act’s provisions and upheld the Revenue Divisional Officer’s authority to enforce them.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments and upheld the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, affirming:
The validity and enforceability of restrictions on transfer of assigned lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act.
The necessity of collecting market value for unauthorized transfers.
The importance of protecting assigned lands from illegal alienation to safeguard public interest.
This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory land assignment laws must be strictly enforced, and authorities are empowered to take action against violations to preserve the integrity of assigned lands and ensure compliance with legal and financial obligations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments