Land assigned to Dalits 60 years ago now goes to commando force

In the 1960s, the government gave 142 acres of land to landless Dalit families. Last month, the Supreme Court gave that same land to a commando force.

The land sat quiet for three decades. Then Hyderabad grew. The plots near Manchirevula village, once scrub and dry grass, became worth millions. The families who had been given the land — landless Dalits, assigned the plots free of cost under a government scheme meant to lift them out of poverty — signed a single piece of paper in 1991. A general power of attorney (a legal document authorising someone else to act on your behalf). They handed it to a man named M.A. Baksh. He began selling the land as residential plots. The government found out. And then began a legal war that would take thirty-two years, three rounds of litigation, and end with the Supreme Court giving the land not back to the families, but to the Greyhounds Commando Force — an elite anti-Naxal unit of the Telangana police.

The question the court had to answer was simple: could the government take back land it had given to Dalits sixty years ago, because the Dalits had sold it illegally?

When the government gave away land for free

In the 1960s, the Andhra Pradesh government decided to distribute government-owned 'kancha' land (uncultivated government land) to landless Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe families. The idea was clear: give the poorest a piece of earth they could call their own, grow food on, and pass to their children. The land was granted under temporary pattas (ownership documents) that came with a hard condition: you could not sell it, transfer it, or mortgage it without written permission from the Collector. If you tried, the government could take it back.

About 142 acres and 39 guntas (a local unit of land measurement) in Manchirevula village, near Hyderabad, were assigned to these families under the Special Laoni Rules of 1950. The rules were designed to keep the land with the poor. They failed.

The 1991 paper that changed everything

For thirty years, nothing happened. The families cultivated the land, or left it fallow. Then Hyderabad's real estate boom reached Manchirevula. In 1991, the assignees executed a general power of attorney in favour of one M.A. Baksh. A GPA is a powerful document — it lets the holder sell property, sign documents, and collect money as if they were the owner. Baksh began selling the plots to third parties as residential sites.

The government noticed. In 1994, the Collector issued a show cause notice (a formal notice asking: why should we not take action?) proposing to cancel the assignment. The District Revenue Officer initially held that the notice was unsustainable. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 2000 sent the matter back to the Collector for a fresh decision. The Collector ordered resumption (taking back the land) in 2003. The High Court set that order aside in 2006.

Then the government played a different card.

The second show cause notice

In December 2006, the Deputy Collector issued a fresh show cause notice. This time, the notice was not under the general land revenue law. It was under a specific statute: the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. This law was passed precisely to stop what had happened — assigned land being sold to private buyers. Section 3 of the Act says that any transfer of assigned land is void. Section 4 says the government can resume the land if such a transfer happens.

The revenue authorities passed a resumption order in January 2007. The assignees challenged it in the High Court. A Single Judge quashed the order in 2010, holding that the second notice was barred by res judicata (the principle that you cannot re-litigate a matter that has already been decided). The government appealed to a Division Bench (a two-judge panel). In December 2021, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge. It upheld the resumption. The assignees went to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court had to decide

The case raised three distinct legal questions. First, could the government issue a second show cause notice after the first one had been set aside? The assignees argued that the earlier litigation had already decided the issue. The state argued that the first notice challenged the validity of the assignment itself, while the second notice challenged the illegal transfers under the 1977 Act — a completely different legal basis.

Second, what exactly counts as 'assigned land' under the 1977 Act? The assignees argued that because the land was given under temporary pattas, it was not 'assigned' in the strict legal sense. The state said the land was clearly assigned under the Laoni Rules, with conditions barring transfer, and therefore fell squarely within the definition.

Third, if the government takes back the land, does it have to pay compensation? The assignees invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution (the right to property, which says no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law, and which courts have interpreted to require compensation). The state argued that resumption is not the same as acquisition. Resumption is the government taking back what it gave, because the conditions of the gift were broken. Acquisition is the government taking something it never owned. One is punitive. The other is compulsory purchase.

Why the court said the second notice was valid

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari on August 1, 2023, rejected every argument the assignees made.

On res judicata, the court held that the first show cause notice and the second one raised distinct grounds. The first challenged the validity of the assignment itself. The second addressed the contravention of the transfer prohibition under the 1977 Act. Only fundamental determinations attract res judicata, the court said — not collateral observations. The second notice was legally fresh.

On the definition of assigned land, the court held that land given under the Special Laoni Rules to landless SC/ST persons free of cost, with conditions barring transfer without the Collector's permission, constitutes 'assigned land' under the 1977 Act. The alienation without prior sanction violated Sections 3(1) to 3(4) of the Act. The resumption under Section 4 was valid.

On compensation, the court drew a sharp distinction. Resumption, it said, is a punitive action by the state to take back a right or interest it originally granted. Acquisition is a positive act to deprive pre-existing rights. Resumption must not be conflated with acquisition under Article 300-A so as to create a right to compensation. The assignees had broken the law. They could not demand payment for land they had no right to sell.

What happens to the land now

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. It declared that the 142 acres and 39 guntas are vested in the State government. It directed that the land be transferred to the Greyhounds Commando Force free from all encumbrances (free of any claims, mortgages, or legal disputes). The court also ordered that no court shall entertain any claim regarding this land. It gave what it called a 'final quietus' — a permanent end — to all title and possessory disputes.

The land that was meant to lift Dalit families out of poverty will now house an elite police unit trained for jungle warfare against Maoist insurgents.

THE PLAY: If you receive assigned government land with a non-alienation condition, any transfer — including a general power of attorney — is void, and the state can resume the land without paying you a rupee.

The families who signed that paper in 1991 lost everything. The buyers who paid Baksh lost their money. And the Greyhounds got a new base.