Prospective operation of land transfer prohibition limits ejectment powers against completed prior transactions.

The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 was construed as prospective because it contained no express retrospective wording and no necessary implication to invalidate completed pre-commencement transfers. The rule deeming certain transfers void operated only on transfers made after the relevant provision came into force, while the evidence rule in Section 3(1)(b) did not expand the substantive prohibition. Section 3(2)(a) was held to be ancillary to the substantive voiding provision and could not independently be used to eject persons in possession under transfers that were valid when made. Completed prior transfers and the possession flowing from them therefore remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as extended and amended, had retrospective operation so as to invalidate transfers completed before it came into force; (ii) Whether the ejectment and restoration machinery under Section 3(2)(a) could independently be used against possession arising from such prior transfers.

Issue (i): Whether the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as extended and amended, had retrospective operation so as to invalidate transfers completed before it came into force.

Analysis: The Regulation contained no express language making it retrospective, and no necessary implication could be drawn to defeat completed transfers made before the Regulation or its later amendments came into force. The provision rendering transfers void operated on transfers made after the relevant provision became effective. The rule in Section 3(1)(b) was only a rule of evidence and did not convert the substantive provision into a retrospective one. The saving and repeal clauses also did not support retrospectivity. The governing principle applied was the presumption that legislation is prospective unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied, especially where vested rights would otherwise be impaired.

Conclusion: The Regulation was prospective and did not affect transfers already completed before its commencement.

Issue (ii): Whether the ejectment and restoration machinery under Section 3(2)(a) could independently be used against possession arising from such prior transfers.

Analysis: Section 3(2)(a) was treated as ancillary to Section 3(1)(a) and could operate only where a transfer was void under the substantive prohibitory provision. It did not create an independent power to disturb possession arising from transfers that were valid when made and outside the reach of Section 3(1)(a). Continued possession under an originally valid transfer could not be treated as unlawful merely because the Regulation later came into force.

Conclusion: Section 3(2)(a) could not be invoked to dislodge possession based on transfers completed before the Regulation applied.

Final Conclusion: Transfers effected before the Regulation or its extension to the concerned areas remained untouched, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to proceed against such past transactions, and only the appeal concerning the 1951 transaction succeeded while the others failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory prohibition affecting transfers of property will not be construed to disturb completed pre-existing transactions or vested rights unless retrospective operation is clearly expressed or arises by necessary implication; ancillary ejectment provisions cannot enlarge the substantive reach of the prohibition.

---