SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 1064

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
State of A.P., Appellant
Versus
S.B.P.V. Chalapathi Rao etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3353-61 of 1981
Decided on 24-10-1994.

Advocates:
B.PARTHASARTHY, K.K.GUPTA, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.R.CHOUDHARY, KANTA RAO, M.SESHADARI, SEITA VAIDIALINGAM, Subba Rao, T.V.S.N.Chari

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Section 21 - Claim its benefit - Textile industry and sugar industry - Court hold that had given a reasonable explanation for sale of lands and was no intention to avoid provisions of Land Ceiling Act- Accordingly Court hold on point-that all sales effected by appellant his wife and his son are true genuine and supported by consideration and y were effected for expansion of industry and actually amounts were invested for such expansion of Sugar Factory and it cannot be said that y were intended to defeat or avoid provisions of Land Ceiling Act- It follows that all extents covered by all sale deeds have to be excluded from holding of appellants family unit for purpose of computation of ceiling area of appellants petitions filed by State of Andhra Pradesh Section were admitted by High Court limited question regarding " treatment of lands as single crop wet lands and in respect of all questions revision petitions were dismissed- High Court therefore upheld above quoted findings of Appellate Tribunal- appeals by State of Andhra Pradesh are against order Appellate Tribunal as upheld by High Court –Held, Court has accepted conclusions reached by Tribunal- High Court has pointed out that large extent of over of land was alienated appellant and his wife within a short period of eight months between It was not case of appellant that re was any pressure on estate for discharge of debts or that alienations were in fact made for discharge of or meeting any binding debts or for meeting marriage or educational expenses of any member of family- It was on basis of this finding that Tribunal came to conclusion that said transactions were made in anticipation of said case respondents might be wanting to raise money for expansion of sugar industry but re is nothing on record to show as to why - when Act was in legislative process to sell more than acres of land- y applied for sometime was in fact granted to was no question of making any expansion till time was granted- Needless to say that keeping in view continuous rise in land-prices respondents - prudent are should have ordinarily waited till time it became absolutely necessary for sell land- In any case y could have waited till November when y obtained - only logical conclusion which be drawn is that y sold huge chunks of lands in anticipation of and with a view to avoid and defeat provisions of Act which came into force Court are therefore of view that Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in reversing order Tribunal further support from judgment of this Court in Officer wherein this Court interpreted Section Tamil Nadu Reforms Fixation Ceiling of Land Tamil Nadu Act - provisions of Tamil Nadu Act and Act are entirely different- therefore judgment of this Court in case relating to Tamil Nadu Act has no relevance whatsoever - Appeals allowed

JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Chalapathi Rao and his son Ananda Mohan, respondents in appeals herein, sold 220.25 acres of land by way of fourteen sale deeds executed on five different days (dates?) between December 16, 1971 and December 27, 1971. The question for consideration is whether the transfers are to be disregarded for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act). The Land Reforms Tribunal (the Tribunal) by its order dated April 14, 1977 answered the question in the affirmative and held that the transfers were made in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of the Act. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (the Appellate Tribunal), however, by its order dated December 17, 1977 reversed the findings of the Tribunal and held as under :-

"Therefore, in these cases we hold that the declarant had given a reasonable explanation for the sale of the lands and there was no intention to avoid the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. Accordingly, we hold on point-1 that all the sales effected by the appellant, his wife and his son are true, genuine and supported by consideration and they were effected for the expansion of their industry and actually the amounts were invested for such expansion of the Sugar Factory and it cannot be said that they were intended to defeat or avoid the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. It follows that all the extents covered by all the sale deeds have to be excluded from the holding of the appellants family unit, for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the appellants."

Revision-petitions filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 21 of the Act were admitted by the High Court on July 6, 1978 on the limited question regarding "the treatment of the lands as single crop wet lands" and in respect of all other questions the revision petitions were dismissed. The High Court, therefore, upheld the above quoted findings of the Appellate Tribunal. These appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh are against the order of the Appellate Tribunal as upheld by the High Court.

2. Sections 7(1) and 21 of the Act, which are relevant, are reproduced hereunder :-

"7. Special provision in respect of certain transfers, etc. already made :- Where on or after the 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him, then the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on such person, and where he has not so proved, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person."

[May 2, 1972 is the notified date under the Act]

21. Revision:- An application for revision from any party aggrieved, including the Government, shall lie to the High Court, within the prescribed period, from any order passed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on any of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) that it exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) that it failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c)that it acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."

3. The Ordinance, which preceded the Act, came into force on May 2, 1972. Section 7(1) of the Act provides that any transfer of land made during the period from January 24, 1971 to May 2, 1972 which was made in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to reduction in the ceiling of agricultural holdings, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area under


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top