Clarifying the Non-Alienability of Government-Assigned Lands under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Assignment Policy

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors. v. Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors. (2025 INSC 5) addressed a foundational question regarding the alienability of lands initially granted under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Assignment Policy. A cluster of civil appeals was filed against a common judgment from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, centered on whether lands originally assigned under government assignment rules—with or without payment of market value—could be freely alienated.

The controversy arose from multiple writ petitions in which private purchasers asserted ownership over assigned lands in Survey Nos. 37 and 38/1 of Khanamet village (in Ranga Reddy District). The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Deputy Collector, which had collectively determined that these lands were inalienable under the Revised Assignment Policy. The High Court had allowed the writ petitions on the assumption that the lands were assigned upon payment of market value, which, in its view, nullified the prohibition on alienation. This Supreme Court decision scrutinizes that assumption and emphasizes the non-alienability condition embedded in the relevant Government Order (G.O.M.S. No.1406, dated 25.07.1958), as well as subsequent case law on the subject.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, holding that it was based on a mistaken premise that the State had conceded to land assignment on payment of market value. The case was remanded for fresh consideration, instructing the High Court to pay closer attention to the Revised Assignment Policy of 1958, the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and pertinent Supreme Court precedents that clarify the non-alienability of these types of assigned lands.

Summary of the Judgment

Across multiple connected appeals, the Supreme Court addressed the following primary issue:

• Whether lands assigned under the Laoni Rules, 1950 and revised through G.O.M.S. No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, could be freely alienated or were subject to the prohibition of transfer under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.

The High Court had earlier invalidated the Government’s prohibition orders by holding that the lands were originally assigned upon payment of market value. However, the Supreme Court found:

• The High Court’s presumption that the assignments were made on payment of market value was not supported by the actual evidence on record.
• The relevant Government Records and the Revised Assignment Policy (under G.O.M.S. No.1406) indicated that the lands were granted without collecting market value, thereby imposing a non-alienability condition.
• Past Supreme Court decisions—Government of AP v. Gudepu Sailoo & Ors. and Yadaiah & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors.—underscore the illegality of alienation if the assignment policy in force imposed a prohibition on transfer.

In setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, instructing the High Court to carefully review the nature of the assignments, the scope of the 1958 Revised Assignment Policy’s non-alienability condition, and the validity of subsequent transactions carried out in possible violation of that condition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied on two major precedents to clarify the status of lands assigned under Andhra Pradesh’s Revised Assignment Policy:

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Gudepu Sailoo & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 625
   This ruling established that where lands are assigned under rules or policies imposing a prohibition on their transfer, sales and other transactions undertaken in violation of that prohibition are void. The Court upheld the State’s authority to resume such lands under the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.
2. Yadaiah & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors. (2023) 10 SCC 755
   This decision reinforced the principle that assignments made under the 1958 Revised Assignment Policy were subject to non-alienability. The Supreme Court emphasized that any such assignment contained implicit or explicit clauses barring permanent transfer. Therefore, transactions that contravene this requirement can be struck down.

By referencing these cases, the Supreme Court underlined that the power to prohibit alienation is inherent in the 1958 Revised Assignment Policy when land is granted free of cost. The High Court, therefore, should not have upheld the sale transactions merely because of permissions under Section 47 and validations under Section 50-B of the Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950, if the lands in question were originally assigned without collecting market value.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning progressed in several logical steps:

1. Establishing the Correct Factual Matrix:
   The Court observed that the High Court’s assumption—namely that the State admitted the payment of market value—was factually incorrect. The State had actively contested that the lands were granted free of cost, subject to non-alienability. Hence, the fundamental premise underlying the High Court’s decision was flawed.
2. Applicability of the Revised Assignment Policy (G.O.M.S. No.1406 of 1958):
   Because the pattas were granted in 1961, after the issuance of the 1958 policy, the Supreme Court held that the condition of non-alienability was very much in force. This condition prohibits transfer of assigned lands, even when subsequent documents or local land reforms (like certain permissions under the Telangana Tenancy Act) appear to permit sale transactions.
3. Confirmation of Prohibitory Conditions:
   Invoking Gudepu Sailoo and Yadaiah, the Court reiterated that any land assigned under policies that included non-alienability automatically enters the ambit of the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. This is irrespective of purported permissions or alienations that may have occurred in the interim.
4. Remand for Fresh Consideration:
   Given the High Court’s apparent reliance on an unfounded assumption, the Supreme Court found it necessary to set aside that judgment entirely and direct the High Court to re-evaluate the matters, taking into account the correct factual material, the relevant policy provisions, and binding precedents.

Impact

The Supreme Court’s judgment is likely to have several significant implications:

• Protection of Public Policy:
  It reaffirms the Government’s authority to protect lands that have been assigned for specific public welfare reasons, preventing their alienation and abuse by speculative purchasers.
• Guidance for Lower Courts and Government Authorities:
  The judgment clarifies that courts must scrutinize the origin and terms of assignment before upholding any sale or transfer of assigned land, especially if granted under a non-alienability clause.
• Enhanced Certainty in Land Transactions:
  Future purchasers and legal practitioners will likely exercise greater caution by verifying whether land in question is subject to any assignment conditions, thus avoiding subsequent voidance of transfers.
• Potential for Further Litigation:
  As the judgment is remanded, many pending matters involving assigned lands in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana may be re-opened or re-evaluated in light of the clarified principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

This judgment touches on several potentially confusing legal concepts:

• Non-Alienability of Assigned Land:
  Government-assigned lands often come with a clause stating they cannot be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise transferred. This is to ensure that the beneficiaries of such assignments, usually from economically weaker or marginalized groups, do not lose the benefit.
• Revised Assignment Policy under G.O.M.S. No.1406 (1958):
  This government order introduced updated rules on land assignment, emphasizing that certain assignments would be free of cost but subject to a total prohibition on alienation. Any subsequent transfer, if done without proper authority, would be void.
• AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977:
  Often referred to as “Act No. 9 of 1977,” this legislation outlaws the transfer of assigned lands in Andhra Pradesh. If individuals transact in such land, the Government retains the right to resume possession of the land.
• Permissions Under the Telangana Tenancy Act (Sections 47 & 50-B):
  While purchasers may point to these permissions as legalizing land sales, these provisions typically apply to private patta lands. If a parcel was government-assigned land, the non-alienability and prohibitory provisions override the general permissions of the Tenancy Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Ors. v. Mohd. Syeed Ather & Ors. unquestionably reinforces the principle that non-alienability conditions embedded in government-initiated assignment policies cannot be ignored. The High Court’s reliance on the presumption that market value was collected—thereby assuming alienability—was found to be unfounded. Such a factual error demanded a reversal and a remand so the High Court could carefully take into account:

• The actual terms of the assignment and the relevant government orders.
• The scope and impact of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.
• The binding effect of prior Supreme Court precedents (Gudepu Sailoo and Yadaiah).

On remand, the High Court must revisit each writ petition to decide whether the assigned lands were originally granted free of cost and under a condition of non-alienability. It should be prepared to invalidate those transactions that contravene these assignment conditions, thereby upholding the larger policy objective of preserving government-assigned lands for the long-term benefit of the assigned holders.

In the broader legal context, this decision serves as a vital reminder to lower courts, counsel, and litigants to rigorously verify the origin and status of assigned land. Any ambiguity in how (and under what policy) land was assigned may prove decisive in the final verdict on its alienability. This robust approach safeguards public interest and preserves assigned lands for the intended beneficiaries.