1. Sale of agricultural land after commencement of land ceiling legislation — Tribunal declared sale void and land excess — Suit for permanent injunction filed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 348
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.5817 OF 2012
Decided On : 13-04-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Single Judge has no jurisdiction to grant certificate to appeal to Supreme Court.
Finding of fact by trial court and re-appreciated by first appellate court is binding on the High Court as well as Supreme Court.
Any suit, decision in which is likely to affect interest of State adversely and where the State is not impleaded, will not be maintainable.
Single Judge has no jurisdiction to grant certificate to appeal to Supreme Court.
Finding of fact by trial court and re-appreciated by first appellate court is binding on the High Court as well as Supreme Court.
Any suit, decision in which is likely to affect interest of State adversely and where the State is not impleaded, will not be maintainable.
Subject
Property Law - Land Ownership
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India – Article 133 and 134-A – Issue of certificate of appeal by High Court – Restrictions contained in Article 133(3) – Single Judge has no jurisdiction to grant certificate. (Para 21)
(1987) 4 SCC 370 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 227 and 136 – Finding of trial court – Re-appreciated by first appellate court – Binding on the High Court as well as Supreme Court – Unless against pleading or evidence or any provision of law or perverse. (Para 25, 26)
(c) Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 – Section 7, 10, 11 – On coming into force of the Act, appellant prohibited to sell his land – Sale of land to respondent null and void – Secondly appellant’s holding being in excess of ceiling limit, suit land was not available to him for sale – Thirdly, after decision of Tribunal suit land becoming "surrendered" or "deemed surrendered" land in favour of the State – Suppressing fact of selling suit land much before filing of suit – Appellant abusing process of law. (Para 28, 29, 30, 33)
AIR 1956 SC 593; AIR 1966 SC 735; (2010) 2 SCC 452; (1985) 4 SCC 10; (1985) 4 SCC 10; (2008) 4 SCC 594; (1998) 7 SCC 654; 1995 Suppl (3) SCC 376 – Distinguished
(d) Interpretation of statute – General and special law – Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 having overriding effect over any other law which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act – Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 being such a law will be overridden by the 1973 Act – Any order passed under 1971 Act having no effect on instant litigation. (Para 31)
(e) Property law – Appellant not having any right title or interest on suit land – Not the owner after Tribunal’s decision – Respondent purchaser could not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit land through the vendor-appellant. (Para 34)
(f) Property law – Appellant’s right, title and interest determined by Tribunal’s decision – Not question of declaring him in possession and thereafter granting injunction against respondent. (Para 36)
(g) Administration of justice – Permanent injunction – Any decision in suit likely to affect interest of State adversely – State not impleaded – Suit not maintainable. (Para 38, 42)
Facts of the case:
The appellant owned several acres of agriculture lands, which also included the suit land. The appellant being a "person" and holding the land in excess of the limits filed a declaration in respect of his holding before the Land Reform Tribunal as required. During the pendency of his case before the Tribunal, the appellant sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 to the respondents. The sale deed, inter alia, recited that the appellant has also delivered possession of the suit land to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 then mortgaged the suit land along with his other lands to the State Bank of India and obtained loan wherein the appellant had stood as the guarantor.
The Tribunal, on 21.08.1976, passed an order and held that the appellant was holding the land in excess of the limits prescribed in the Act. It was further held that so far as the transfer of the suit land made by the appellant in favour of the respondents vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 is concerned, the same was void because it was effected by the appellant after the Act had come into force which was prohibited. The appellant was, therefore, directed to surrender the excess land held by him in favour of the State as provided in the Act.
Almost after 2 decades from the date of the order of the Tribunal (21.08.1976), another litigation began between the appellant and the respondents in relation to the suit land. This was under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 wherein the issue was whose name -the appellant or the respondents be entered in the Pass Book in relation to the suit land as Pattadar. This litigation ended in appellant's favour by the orders of the revisionary Court.
On 29.10.1998, i.e., almost after 22 years from the date of the Tribunal’s order (21.08.1976) the appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land against the respondents.
The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit.
The defendants (respondents) filed first appeal before the High Court which was allowed and the suit was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Litigation by appellant and respondents are abuse of process of law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- land law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claims lawful possession and entitlement to injunction — Defendants claim title via sale deed and possession. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 )
3. Sale void under ceiling laws — Land deemed surrendered to State — Overriding effect of ceiling laws over revenue records — Lack of lawful possession. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 43 , 45 )
4. A person cannot claim permanent injunction without proving legal possession; land declared excess under ceiling laws cannot be held in lawful possession by private parties. (Para 37 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court judgment upheld — Tribunal directed to pass consequential orders under the land ceiling Act. (Para 44 , 46 )
6. Can a Single Judge of a High Court grant a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133?
No. Under Article 133(3) of the Constitution, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree, or final order of a single judge of a High Court, unless Parliament provides otherwise. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
7. What is the requirement regarding possession for granting a prohibitory injunction?
To claim a prohibitory injunction, the plaintiff must prima facie prove that their possession over the suit land is legal, in addition to establishing irreparable loss and injury. (Para 37 )
8. Does a person holding land declared excess under land ceiling laws have lawful possession for the purpose of an injunction?
No. Once a Tribunal declares land to be in excess of ceiling limits, the holder is not in lawful possession and cannot exercise ownership rights against private parties. (Para 36 , 37 )
9. How do land ceiling laws interact with other land record laws, such as the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971?
Provisions of the land ceiling Act have an overriding effect over other inconsistent laws. Orders passed under revenue record laws cannot determine possession or rights if they conflict with the ceiling Act. (Para 31 , 32 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal by certificate is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 28.10.2011 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No.4141 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants (respondents herein) and reversed the final judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in Original Suit No. 98 of 1998.
2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state few relevant facts taken from the appeal paper books.
3) The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
4) The subject matter of this appeal is an agriculture land measuring Ac.13.38 cents in Survey No. 436 and Ac. 9.38 cents in Survey No. 826 (total land-22 acres 76 cents) situated in -Agnigundala Village of Ipur Mandal, District Guntur Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land”).
5) The appellant owned several acres of agriculture lands, which also included the suit land. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”) was enacted on 01.01.1973. It came into force on 01.01.1975. The appellant being a "person" as defined under Section 3(o) of the Act and was holding the land in excess of the limits prescribed under the Act filed a declaration in respect of his holding before the Tribunal as required under Section 7 of the Act. During the pendency of his case before the Tribunal, the appellant sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 to the respondents. The sale deed, inter alia, recited that the appellant has also delivered possession of the suit land to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 then mortgaged the suit land along with his other lands to the State Bank of India and obtained loan wherein the appellant had stood as the guarantor.
6) The Tribunal, on 21.08.1976, passed an order in CC No.2311/VKD/75 under Section 7 of the Act and held inter alia that the appellant was holding the land in excess of the limits prescribed in the Act. It was further held that so far as the transfer of the suit land made by the appellant in favour of the respondents vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 is concerned, the same was void because it was effected by the appellant after the Act had come into force which was prohibited under Section 7(2) read with Section 17 of the Act. The appellant was, therefore, directed to surrender the excess land held by him in favour of the State as provided in the Act.
7) In 1995-1998, i.e., almost after 2 decades from the date of the order of the Tribunal (21.08.1976), another litigation began between the appellant and the respondents in relation to the suit land. This was under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act of 1971 ") wherein the issue was whose name -the appellant or the respondents be entered in the Pass Book in relation to the suit land as Pattadar. This litigation ended in appellant's favour by the orders of the revisionary Court.
8) On 29.10.1998, i.e., almost after 22 years from the date of the Tribunal’s order (21.08.1976) the appellant filed a civil suit (O.S.No. 98/1998) against the respondents before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet out of which this appeal arises. The suit was for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land against the respondents. It was essentially founded on the allegations that the appellant is the owner of the suit land to the exclusion of all persons including the respondents, who have no right to interfere in the appellant's possession over the suit land. It was averred that the appellant has been and continues to remain in possession of the suit land and since the respondents are threatening the appellant to dispossess him from the suit land, hence he wa
