1. Dispute over land transfers governed by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, where sale deeds were declared null and void for contravening Section 3(1). (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 527
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Bikkina Rama Rao & Ors. – Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) Kota Ramachandrapuram & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 4658 of 2008
Decided on : 03-05-2019
Important Points
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court to decide the validity of sale deeds afresh, emphasizing that the definition of 'Transfer' under Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, and relevant evidence must be properly considered.
Subject
Land Dispute - Regulation Violation
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED AREAS LAND TRANSFER REGULATIONS: Reg.2(g), Reg..3, Reg..3(1)(a), Reg..3(1)
Headnote
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 - Section 2(g) and 3 - High Court declaring sale deeds null and void without examining the case in context of definition of transfer in section 2(g) - Also not considering documents filed by appellant to prove the transfer legal and not contrary to section 3 - Matter remanded to High court. (Para 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The claim of the appellants is that they have purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 29.01.1977 executed by several vendors. However, the State (Special Deputy Collector -Tribal welfare, Kota Ramachandra Puram, West Godavari), questioned the bona fides of the transactions in question and accordingly issued the notices to the appellants alleging therein that since these sale deeds were found executed in contravention of Section 3(1) (a) of the Regulation by the Vendors and the Vendees (appellants) and, therefore, they were null and void.
It is this issue which was probed by the Revenue Authorities by holding an inquiry under the Regulation such as in the first instance, by the Special Deputy Collector by order dated 24.04.1984, thereafter by the Agent to Govt. (as an Appellate Authority) by order dated 27.10.2001 followed by the State (as a Revisionary Authority) by order dated 16.07.2007 and by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction by order dated 02.08.2007 and thereafter in its intra court appellate jurisdiction by the impugned order.
Though the appellants contested the issue on facts and in law but it was consequently decided against the appellants by all the Authorities and the Courts, wherein it was held that the sale deeds in question were executed in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and, therefore, they are declared null and void.
Finding of the Court:
High Court needs to consider the matter afresh.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Mr. R.Basant, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G.V.R.Choudary, Advocate, Mr. K.Shivraj Choudhuri, Advocate, Mr. A.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Goel, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate, Ms. Akshara Naidu, Advocate and Mr.K.Shivraj Choudhuri, Advocate,
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate, Mr. Prashant M., Advocate, Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate and Mr. G. N. Reddy, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Mr. R.Basant, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G.V.R.Choudary, Advocate, Mr. K.Shivraj Choudhuri, Advocate, Mr. A.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Goel, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate, Ms. Akshara Naidu, Advocate and Mr.K.Shivraj Choudhuri, Advocate,
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate, Mr. Prashant M., Advocate, Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate and Mr. G. N. Reddy, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Whether sale deeds executed for land in scheduled areas are null and void for contravening Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation. (Para 4 , 8 )
3. The High Court failed to examine the definition of transfer under Section 2(g) and overlooked documents proving the transactions were not hit by Section 3. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. Determining the validity of land transfers under the Regulation requires examination of the statutory definition of transfer and consideration of all relevant evidence. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to the Single Judge for fresh decision on merits, including impleadment of subsequent allottees. (Para 10 , 14 , 17 )
6. What must be considered when determining if a land transfer contravenes the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation?
The court must examine the case in the context of the definition of Transfer as provided in Section 2(g) of the Regulation and consider all documents filed to prove the legality of the transaction. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Under what circumstances is a remand to the writ court necessary in land transfer disputes?
A remand is necessary when the lower court fails to examine the statutory definition of transfer or overlooks material documents essential to determining if the transaction is hit by the Regulation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 675 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal filed by the appellants herein.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.
3. The dispute relates to the land measuring around 60 acres comprised in survey Nos.462 and 472 situated at Ganaparavaram village of Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). This dispute is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation").
4. The claim of the appellants is that they have purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 29.01.1977 executed by several vendors. However, the State (Special Deputy Collector -Tribal welfare, Kota Ramachandra Puram, West Godavari), questioned the bona fides of the transactions in question and accordingly issued the notices to the appellants alleging therein that since these sale deeds were found executed in contravention of Section 3(1) (a) of the Regulation by the Vendors and the Vendees (appellants) and, therefore, they were null and void.
5. It is this issue which was probed by the Revenue Authorities by holding an inquiry under the Regulation such as in the first instance, by the Special Deputy Collector by order dated 24.04.1984, thereafter by the Agent to Govt. (as an Appellate Authority) by order dated 27.10.2001 followed by the State (as a Revisionary Authority) by order dated 16.07.2007 and by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction by order dated 02.08.2007 and thereafter in its intra court appellate jurisdiction by the impugned order.
6. Though the appellants contested the issue on facts and in law but it was consequently decided against the appellants by all the Authorities and the Courts, wherein it was held that the sale deeds in question were executed in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and, therefore, they are declared null and void.
7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court and have filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
8. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Authorities and the Courts were justified in holding that the sale deeds in question are null and void because they were executed in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation.
9. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Adinaryana Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned order as also the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Single Judge, remand the case to the Single Judge (writ court) for deciding the appellants' writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.
11. The need to remand the case to the High Court (writ court) has arisen for two reasons.
12. First, the High Court did not examine the case in the context of the definition of the expression "Transfer" as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation; and Second, certain documents filed by the appellants to prove the transactions in question as being legal and not hit by Section 3 of the Regulation as amended with effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered.
13. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned two grounds was also necessary while deciding the legality and validity of the sale deeds in question along with all other issues decided by the Courts below.
14. It is for this reason, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the High Court (Single Judge-writ court) for deciding the app
