Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin : S.B.Majmudar : S.P.Bharucha
Deputy Collector
Versus
S.Venkata Ramanaiah
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 9/18/95
Advocates Appeared: Amareshwari K. : Bobde V.A. : Prabhakar G. : Ramkumar K. : Rao A.D.N. : Rao A.Subba
A. P. Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – Tenant - No jurisdiction to treat - A division bench of the A. P. High court by the judgment under appeal allowed the writ petition by taking the view that the provisions of the Regulation were not retrospective in nature and could not affect past transactions like the transaction in question which was reflected by registered sale deed dated 19-6-1919 even though the land was situated in District which fell within the definition of "Agency Tracts" as laid down by Section 2(a) of 1959 Regulation. It was, therefore, held that the said transaction could not be processed or scrutinized by authorities functioning under the Regulation and they had no jurisdiction to treat the said transaction to be null and void under the Regulation - Writ petition was accordingly allowed. The authorities as appellants before this court have filed this appeal having obtained special leave to appeal from this court against the impugned judgment of the division bench of the High court – Held, THESE were the only contentions canvassed in support of the appeals preferred by the authorities under the Regulation. There is no substance in these contentions - It must be held that as the transfers in these cases were effected years back, prior to the coming into force of the Regulations in question they could not be covered by these Regulations. The authorities acting under the Regulations Had no jurisdiction to deal with them. In the result Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition and Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition will have to be dismissed - BEFORE parting with these appeals we have to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned counsel who on our request was good enough to appear amicus curiae for the respondents in these cases - So far as Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition is concerned, though the High court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, in view of our decision on the main controversy and our finding that the provisions of the Regulation would not hit transaction of transfers entered into prior to coming into force of the Regulation this appeal is required to be allowed on merits. In the present case even though the sale was of the land situated in district of region which was forming a part and parcel of the Agency Tracts, as the transaction was, much prior to the coming into force of the Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 2 of 1963 which became effective in this transaction was outside the sweep of Section 3 Regulation. Consequently no useful purpose would be served by relegating the appellant to the remedy of revision before the State authorities when this question is concluded by our present judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgments of the division bench of the High court and that of learned Single Judge are set aside. Writ petition filed by the appellant before the High court is allowed - Orders of the authorities below against the appellant passed under Section 3(1(a) read with Section 3(2(a) of the Regulation will stand quashed and set aside. As these appeals are being disposed of on a question of law and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases, even though the appeals by the authorities are dismissed and the last appeal moved by arising out of Special Leave Petition is allowed there will be no order as to costs in all these appeals
Judgment
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.
(1) LEAVE granted in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 10746 of 1981, 1041 and 2407 of 1986.
(2) IN this group of matters a common question arises for our consideration. It is as under:
"WHETHER the provisions of the A. P. (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation) and the subsequent Regulation No. 2 of 1963 and Regulation no. 1 of 1970 have retrospective effect and can affect transfers made prior to the coming into force of the said Regulations."
(3) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective contesting parties in this group of matters. Accordingly all these appeals are. being disposed of by this common judgment.
(4) A few facts leading to these appeals may be noted at the outset.
(5) THE appellant authorities, namely, Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) and the District Collector functioning in Srikakulam District in the State of A. P., have brought in challenge a decision of the A. P. High court allowing Writ Petition No. 4434 of 1975 moved by the respondents, praying for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the orders of the appellant authorities passed under the provisions of the Regulation. The respondents, writ petitioners before the High court had purchased the land in their occupation on 19-6-1919 from a non-tribal named Pappala Appanna. After the promulgation of the Regulation in 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 the competent authority being agent of the government initiated proceedings against the respondents on the ground that the said sale in their favour was hit by Section 3(l)(a) of the Regulation and, therefore, the respondents were liable to be evicted from the land in question which had to be restored to the original vendor or his successor-IN-INTEREST. After hearing the respondents the Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) passed an order of eviction against the respondents. The respondents appeal before the District Collector failed. And that is how the respondents filed writ petition before the High court. A division bench of the A. P. High court by the judgment under appeal allowed the writ petition by taking the view that the provisions of the Regulation were not retrospective in nature and could not affect past transactions like the transaction in question which was reflected by registered sale deed dated 19-6-1919 even though the land was situated in Srikakulam District which fell within the definition of "Agency Tracts" as laid down by Section 2(a) of 1959 Regulation. It was, therefore, held that the said transaction could not be processed or scrutinised by the authorities functioning under the Regulation and they had no jurisdiction to treat the said transaction to be null and void under the Regulation. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. The authorities as appellants before this court have filed this appeal having obtained special leave to appeal from this court against the impugned judgment of the division bench of the High court.
(6) IN this appeal the authorities functioning under the very same Regulation have brought in challenge the order passed by the division bench of the A. P. High court in Writ Appeal No. 121 of 1985 which came to be dismissed by the Appellate court and whereby the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1382 of 1978 came to be confirmed. The first respondent herein was a protected tenant of Survey No. 97 admeasuring 9 acres and 4 guntas and Survey No. 98 admeasuring 8 acres and 8 guntas situated at Chirrankunta Village of Asifabad Taluk of Adilabad District of A. P.. One Siddamshetti Narayana was the Pattedar of the said land. Respondent 1 was cultivating the said land as his tenant. The Pattedar of this land was a tribal. He had transferred this land for cultivation as a tenant to Respondent 1 and it was noted in Khasra Pahani of the year 1
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
