• Land Tenancy Act section 47, Mandatory permission - ULC proceedings

X purchased piece of land from Y in the year 1965 without obtaining mandatory permission from tahsildar as per section 47 of A.P tenenancy act. Later in 1976, X filed declaration as per ULC act and proceedings are under 2nd appeal. Legal heirs of Y in 2019 filed for cancellation of sale deed of X as permission was not taken under sec 47 of land tenancy act. What is the Remedy available to Y -- ?
Asked 6 months ago in Property Law from HYDERABAD, Telangana
Religion: Hindu

1) Don't leave possession of land at any cost as of now.

2) Need to check has sale deed registered  on X name and all mutations papers transfer on X name.

Ganesh Kadam
Advocate, Pune
7095 Answers
60 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

Sir cancellation is filed after like 5 decades the suit is barred by limitation. At what stage the suit of Y is now 

And what is order in first appeal in delcaration of X.

Shubham Jhajharia
Advocate, Ahmedabad
18230 Answers
71 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

transfer in the absence of prior permission or sanction of the Tahsildar under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950 was prohibited


case of Manchegowda And Ors. vs. State of Karnataka And Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 301, this Court while considering certain prohibited transfers under statute had held that the same were void as the transferees acquired only a defeasible title to the lands transferred. 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
65428 Answers
3960 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

It would be better for you to take proper legal guidelines by showing complete files of your case to an advocate so that you can take a right path to handle your issues. Vague answers will not give you the exact relief .

Mohammed Mujeeb
Advocate, Hyderabad
9336 Answers
3 Consultations

4.5 on 5.0


File an objection saying that such claim challenging the validity of the sale deed is not maintainable being barred by the law of limitation. Also, share the copy of the suit wherein the sale deed has been challenged for a more concrete advise. 


Anilesh Tewari
Advocate, New Delhi
16736 Answers
253 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Through adverse possession, X got the title. Reply to Y suit that ownership prevail through adverse possession, even if sale not valid.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
12246 Answers
13 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tenancy Act') was enacted by erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1950. Section 47 of the said Act required previous sanction of Talukdar (District Collector) for non-alienation (sic. alienation) of all agricultural lands. 

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any decree or order of a Court, no permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Collector.

The aforesaid provisions of the Act 1950 have been the subject matter of consideration by the courts time and again.

However, it should be subject of course, to the limitation with regard to the extent of holdings as specified in Section 38(7) and to the proviso to Section 38-E(1).

Once, persons who held the land on the dates or for the periods mentioned in Sections 35, 37 and 37-A and the requirement of the physical possession on the dates specified in those sections, has been fulfilled, such persons have become protected tenants.

Once a person becomes a protected tenant, he earns a qualification to become an owner by force of the statute.


Now Y is claiming for cancellation of sale deed at this stage which is barred by limitation hence his claim or suit seeking cancellation may not be maintainable.


Section 47 of the Act, 1950 (omitted by amendment of 1969) provided that any transfer of such land except, to the protected tenant shall be void ab initio. The protected tenant may surrender his rights by strict adherence to the statutory requirements under the Act, 1950. In case there is any deviation of any such requirement, it would render the surrender ineffective and inconsequential. 20. It is a settled legal proposition that challenge to consequential order without challenging the basic order/statutory provision on the basis of which the order has been passed cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is a legal obligation on the part of the party to challenge the basic order and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential order may be examined (vide P. Chithranja Menon & Ors. v. A. Balakrishnan & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1720; H.V. Pardasani etc. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 781; and Government of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Deokars Distillery, AIR 2003 SC 1216).

Though your case is under second appeal, you may have to struggle to  get a decree in your favor through the appellate court in view of the laws against your claim.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
55240 Answers
674 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

If y is alive and he has not taken consent and NOC of his legal heirs it will be problems for X has he has paid the consideration. Y should come forward and take a stand in the same and make good the loss to X

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
11640 Answers
18 Consultations

4.8 on 5.0


First and Foremost, X should get the 2nd appeal decree in his favour. 

Please note that Section 47 of Land Tenancy act is no longer in force and as such legal heirs of Y cannot invoke this provision in 2019. 

The only thing X has to take care is that 2nd appeal per ULC act has to be settled in X Favour at the very earliest.  


Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
1644 Answers
287 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer