JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2007, passed in W.P.No.2985 of 2003 and W.P.Nos.16078, 17626, 20308 and 24528 of 2007, by the petitioners of W.P.No.2985 of 2003, challenging dismissal of the Writ Petition. 2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were given individual orders of allotment of the land, totally admeasuring Ac.30.74 cents in Sy.No.56(1) and (2) of Aganampudi village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by the Tahsildar, Anakapalli, vide proceedings dated 12.05.1977 in exercise of powers under Section 10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the 1973 Act”) and they were required to pay stipulated amount within a period of 15 years. They had paid the total amount by the year 1992 and, thus, they have absolute and unfettered right and ownership over the land, which is not fit for cultivation as it consists of uneven contour and big rocks. Their pattas were cancelled by the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 30.11.1993 on the ground that the land had not been cultivated and Writ Petition being W.P.No.6998 of 1999 having been filed challenging the cancellation of allotment, the same was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 08.08.2001. 3. The present Writ Petition came to be filed, challenging the notice dated 25.01.2003, issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of powers under Section 14 (5) of the 1973 Act, asking the petitioners to show cause within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the notice, as to why he should not order resumption of the land referred to in the two documents as indicated in the notice, by forfeiting of the amount paid in terms of Section 14 (2) of the 1973 Act, by virtue of and in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 14 (5) of the 1973 Act, read with Rule 10 (5) of the Rules made. 4. 4. In the said notice, which was issued to 18 petitioners, it was indicated that they had entered into two sale agreements/General Power of Attorney in respect of the land for which pattas were given to them, covered by Sy.No.56 (1) and (2) of Aganampudi village, GajuwakaMandal, Visakhapatnam District, with one Namburu Srinivasa Rao, Project Manager, G.P.R. Housing Private Limited, under two registered documents – one to the extent of Ac.26.28 cents in Sy.No.56 (1) and (2) for a consideration of Rs.28,90,800/-and other to the extent of Ac.4.46 cents for a consideration of Rs.4,90,600/-. It is further indicated in the said notice that they had authorized the General Power of Attorney holder to form layout of the house sites approved by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and to secure clearance from the Special Officer (Urban Land Ceiling) to sell away the house site plots to intending purchasers and get sale deeds registered on their behalf. It is also stated therein that, from the said two documents, it is clear that they had deliberately alienated the aforesaid land in favour of the said Namburu Srinivasa Rao, in violation of the conditions of transfer of land, in contravention of the provisions of law and in violation of Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act read with conditions prescribed under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) and clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 10 of the Rules. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional officer, it is stated that the petitioners were allotted surplus land as contemplated under Section 14 (4) of the 1973 Act and each of the petitioners was granted Ac.2.19 cents of land in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act. One of the conditions laid out was that the land shall not be alienated in any manner whatsoever. The payment in terms of Section 14(2) of the 1973 Act, was made by the petitioners and the petitioners were granted patta in the year 1977 itself (perhaps should have been 1992). The assertion of the petitioners that they have become absolute owners of the lands and that they had right to alienate the lands, was denied and, in that connection, reliance was placed on Section 14 (4) (1), 14 (5) and Rule 10 (4) (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. The assertion of the petitioners that they have become absolute owners of the lands and that they had right to alienate the lands, was denied and, in that connection, reliance was placed on Section 14 (4) (1), 14 (5) and Rule 10 (4) (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. It is stated that the petitioners, having been identified as eligible persons under the 1973 Act, were allotted lands on payment of a very nominal amount, which does not represent the market value calculated at 50 years assignment. 6. The learned single Judge opined that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, four questions had arisen for consideration and the said questions were enumerated in paragraph 12 of the order as follows: “1. Whether the ceiling surplus agricultural lands transferred in favour of the landless poor persons subject to the condition that the lands shall not be alienated by the transferee permanently prohibits the transferee under Section 14(4) of the Act 1973 from alienating the said lands? 2. Whether the condition on the allottee/transferee to pay, under Section 14(2) of the Act 1973 read with Rule 10(4)(a) of the Rules 1974, a sum calculated at 50 times the land revenue in 15 annual installments from the date of allotment/transfer transforms into an absolute ownership entitling the landless poor to alienate the said land? 3. Whether the allotment/transfer of the ceiling surplus lands on payment of concessional sum at 50 times of the land revenue in 15 annual installments shall be treated as assignment of the land under the provisions of the Act 1977? 4. Whether the ceiling surplus land transferred/allotted in favour of landless poor under the provisions of the Act 1973 and the Rules made thereunder is to be resumed under the Act 1973 alone or under the provisions of the Act 1977 also?” 7. The answers to these questions were recorded in a composite manner in paragraph 21 of the order and, as such, it will be appropriate to extract paragraph 21, in its entirety. “21. The answers to these questions were recorded in a composite manner in paragraph 21 of the order and, as such, it will be appropriate to extract paragraph 21, in its entirety. “21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the ceiling surplus agricultural lands transferred in favour of the landless poor containing the condition that the lands are not alienable but inheritable permanently prohibits the transferee to alienate the said lands either under the provisions of the Act 1973 or under the provisions of the Act 1977. The conditional transfer in favour of the landless poor transferring the agricultural lands on payment of 50 times the land revenue, subject to maximum of Rs.375/-in case of dry land and Rs.1,025/-in case of wet land per hectare, to be collected in 15 annual installments, imposing a condition not to alienate such lands, even after the payment of the said meager sum, the prohibition of transfer continues. The Act 1977 prohibits transfer of such assigned lands permanently, if a condition is imposed while transfer that such lands are not alienable. For violation of the condition imposed while transferring the lands in favour of the landless poor in respect of ceiling surplus lands or any other lands with such condition prohibiting the transfer, the resumption can be under the provisions of the Act 1973 or under the provisions of the Act 1977 also. The Act 1977 itself has been enacted to protect such lands and the provisions of the Act 1977 have overriding effect over other laws including the Act 1973, as in the case of the lands situated in the Andhra Pradesh scheduled areas. Accordingly, all the questions are answered against the petitioners.” 8. It will be relevant at this stage to note that the Writ Petition was filed by 18 petitioners. However, copy of the judgment and order indicates 15 petitioners and the appeal is also preferred by the aforesaid petitioners whose names appear in the copy of the judgment and order. 9. Writ Appeal, as was originally filed, had two respondents, viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 10. In the Writ Appeal, 5 persons filed an application for impleading themselves and, by order dated 05.02.2014, they were impleaded as respondents 3 to 7. 9. Writ Appeal, as was originally filed, had two respondents, viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 10. In the Writ Appeal, 5 persons filed an application for impleading themselves and, by order dated 05.02.2014, they were impleaded as respondents 3 to 7. Later on, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, was also impleaded at the instance of the writ petitioners, as respondent No.8, by order dated 20.10.2020. 11. In the affidavit of respondents 3 to 7, it is stated that the land assigned in the name of the writ petitioners was not vested in the Government and the said land was gifted to Bhoodan Yagna Board way back in the year 1956 and, that, without giving notice to Bhoodan Yagna Board, and without intimating the family of late Tiyyali Sankaraiah, who donated the land to Bhoodan Yagna Board, the land was allotted to the writ petitioners and at the instance of G.P.R. Housing Society, alienation proceedings were created in favour of the writ petitioners and the same was sold to G.P.R. Housing Society. It is stated that the Writ Appeal is pursued in the name of dead persons and the Writ Petition was rightly dismissed. 12. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants, having made full payment of the instalments, have become pattadars by operation of law, and after making payment of the entire instalments, they no longer remain “transferees”. He submits that Section 14 (4) and (5) of the 1973 Act apply during the stage when the transfer of land has not matured into patta. It is also contended that payment of amount is a consideration for grant of patta in terms of Section 14(2) of the Act and Section 14(3) of the 1973 Act makes it clear that default in payment of yearly instalments would lead to resumption of land and forfeiture of the amounts already paid and since there was no default in payment of the instalments by the appellants, question of resumption of land or forfeiture of the amount do not arise. It is contended by him that the learned single Judge committed error of law in placing reliance on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the 1977 Act”), as assignment of the land is altogether different from disposal of surplus land, which got vested with the State as observed in Section 14 of the 1973 Act. He contends that when a patta is issued after making complete payment of instalment amounts, title will devolve on the transferee and, therefore, there can be no question of resumption of land or permanent restraint on alienability of the land. Learned Senior Counsel submits that if an interpretation is given that restraint in transfer of land is perpetual, such a stipulation would be, ex facie, illegal. 13. He relies on the decision in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors. reported in MANU/AP/0801/2002 = 2002(5) ALD 532 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that pattadar, in the context of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. (Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli) means a person who possess title to the land and whether he is in possession of the land or not, is responsible to the Government for payment of land revenue. 14. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Jalal and others, Appellants v. Targopal Ram Reddy and others, reported in AIR 1970 AP 19 , he submits that transfer of a right of occupancy or of the patta of holding insofar as Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. (Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli) is concerned, would equally be a transfer of all that is necessary to effectually transfer agricultural land and vest a title to whom it is transferred. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of the Court to a judgment in the case of Manchegowda and others v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301 with particular emphasis on paragraph 17. 15. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 8, submits that learned single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter in the correct perspective and no interference is called for with regard to the order under appeal. 15. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 8, submits that learned single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter in the correct perspective and no interference is called for with regard to the order under appeal. He has placed reliance on the 1977 Act, with particular emphasis on Section 2(1), 3 and 10. 16. Mr. Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 submits that learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition and the same does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 17. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 18. There is no dispute that pattas have been granted in respect of the appellants on payment of amount stipulated. 19. Though the learned single Judge had extracted Section 14 of the 1973 Act, to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to extract the same in this judgment also. Section 14 of the 1973 Act reads as follows: “14. Disposal of land vested in Government:- (1) The lands vested in the Government under this Act shall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites, or transferred to the weaker-sections of the people dependent on agriculture for agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that, as far as may be practicable, not less than one half of the total extent of land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and out of the balance, not less than two-thirds shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the backward classes, classes of citizens notified by the Government for purposes of Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. (2) Every person, to whom the land has been allotted for use as house-site or transferred for the purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, shall pay to the Government within a period of fifteen years from the date of allotment or transfer or within a shorter period at his option, and in such installments as may be prescribed, a sum calculated at fifty times the land revenue payable on such land, subject to a maximum of rs.1,250 per hectare in the case of wet land and Rs.375 per hectare in the case of dry land and on payment of the entire amount such person shall be granted a patta in respect of that land. Explanation:-Where any land transferred under this subsection contains any fruit-bearing trees or permanent structures, the transferee shall also be liable to pay the value of such trees or structures calculated in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Where any persons fails to pay the sum referred to in subsection (2) or any installment thereof the Revenue Divisional Officer may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, resume the lands after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of making a representation in this behalf and the amount already paid by such person to the Government shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government. (4) Any transfer of the land under this Section shall be subject to: (i) the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the Government, a bank or a Co-operative Society, including a land mortgage bank; and (ii) the condition that where the land transferred in an orchard, the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an orchard; and (iii) such other condition as may be prescribed. (5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions specified in sub-section (4) shall be null and void; and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons affected of making a representation in this behalf. (5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions specified in sub-section (4) shall be null and void; and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons affected of making a representation in this behalf. (6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Government may; (i) lease out any land vesting in them under this Act for such purposes and on terms and conditions as may be specified by them; or (ii) reserve such land for any common use or benefit of the community.” 20. A perusal of the above provision goes to show that the land vested in the Government under the 1973 Act shall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other houseless poor persons; or shall be transferred to landless poor persons for purposes of agricultural or for purposes ancillary thereto. Section 14(2) of the 1973 Act provides that the person to whom the land has been allotted for use as house-site or transferred for the purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, shall pay to the Government within a period of fifteen years from the date of allotment or transfer or within a shorter period at his option, and in such instalments as may be prescribed, a sum calculated at fifty times the land revenue payable on such land, subject to a maximum of Rs.1,250 per hectare in the case of wet land, Rs.375 per hectare in the case of dry land and on payment of the entire amount such person shall be granted a patta in respect of that land. 21. Section 14(3) of the 1973 Act provides that where any persons fail to pay the sum referred to in sub-section (2) or any instalment thereof, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, resume the lands after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of making a representation in this behalf and the amount already paid by such person to the Government shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government. 22. In the instant case, having regard to the factual matrix, Section 14(3) of the 1973 Act has no application. 22. In the instant case, having regard to the factual matrix, Section 14(3) of the 1973 Act has no application. Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act provides that any transfer of land under Section 14 shall be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the Government, a bank or a Co-operative Society, including a land mortgage bank; and the condition that where the land transferred in an orchard, the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an orchard; and such other conditions as may be prescribed. 23. Mr. VedulaVenkataRamana, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, seeks to contend that Section 14 (4) (i) & (ii) of the 1973 Act would be attracted in a situation where full payment was not yet made and Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act has application during the interregnum period prior to grant of patta. 24. In Section 14(1) of the 1973 Act, two expressions have been used “allotment” and “transfer”. Though in Section 14(4), expression “transfer” is used, according to our understanding, having regard to the provisions of the Section, the word “transfer” carries the same meaning as “allotment”, inasmuch as from the date of allotment or transfer, on due payment of instalments within the period prescribed, both the allottee and the transferee are granted a patta in respect of the land which had been allotted or transferred. There is nothing to indicate in Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act that the condition that the land shall not be alienated applies only before the patta is issued as is sought to be contended by Mr.Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel. The use of the word “under this Section” as appearing in Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act negates any such assumption. In the context of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge was not justified in taking recourse to the provisions of the 1977 Act, it will be necessary to take note of the provisions as contained in Section 2(1), Section 3 and Section 10 of the 1977 Act. In the context of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge was not justified in taking recourse to the provisions of the 1977 Act, it will be necessary to take note of the provisions as contained in Section 2(1), Section 3 and Section 10 of the 1977 Act. Section 2(1) provides that unless the context otherwise requires, “assigned lands” means lands assigned by Government to the landless poor persons under the Rules for the time being in force subject to the condition of non-alienationand includes land allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word “assigned” shall be construed accordingly. Explanation to Section 2(1)provides that a mortgage in favour of the entities as indicated therein, such as, Central Government, State Government etc., and they shall not be regarded as alienation. 25. A perusal of Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act goes to show that assigned land takes within its fold land allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the 1973 Act. 26. Section 3 of the 1977 Act prohibits transfer of assigned lands. Section 10 provides that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the provisions of the 1977 Actwill have overriding effect over any other law notwithstanding anything contained in such law. 27. Under Section 4(5) of the 1977 Act, where any assigned land is in possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is provided, that there is contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 1977 Act. 27. Under Section 4(5) of the 1977 Act, where any assigned land is in possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is provided, that there is contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 1977 Act. In that context, learned single Judge had relied on a Full Bench decision in the case of Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, reported in 1987 (1) ALT FB 124, wherein it was held that the manifest intention of the Legislature is to save the landless poor persons from the clutches of the rich and the resourceful, who deprived them of the precious title to the small plots of land assigned to them by the Government, which alone provided them occupation and the source of livelihood and the provisions of 1977 Act have retrospective operation. Section 3(1) of the Act not only prohibits transfer of the assigned land on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land which took place prior to coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void, nonest in the eye of law, and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. 28. In the case of Manchegowda (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr.Venkatarmana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that condition imposed against transfer for a particular period of lands granted essentially for the benefit of the grantees cannot be said to constitute any unreasonable restriction. But, the present case being a case where prohibition of transfer is sought to be contended by the State as perpetual, such prohibition constitutes an unreasonable restriction, he seeks to contend. 29. We do not find force in the argument. The allottes or the transferees were allotted or transferred the land that vested in the Government for use as house-sites being agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites or weaker-sections of the people dependent on agriculture for agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. 29. We do not find force in the argument. The allottes or the transferees were allotted or transferred the land that vested in the Government for use as house-sites being agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites or weaker-sections of the people dependent on agriculture for agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. As held by the Full Bench in the case of Dharma Reddy (supra), the manifest intention of the Legislature is to save the landless poor persons from the clutches of the rich and the resourceful and that is why the Government not only prohibited transfer of the assigned land on or after the commencement of the 1977 Act, but also declared retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land which took place prior to coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. 30. If any alienation is effected in respect of any allotted or transferred land in violation of the conditions specified in Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer can certainly take steps in terms of Section 14(5) of the 1973 Act. That is what was done in the instant case. 31. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.