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

2001 Supreme(AP) 985

S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO, C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
K. Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
K. Pedda Venkaiah – Respondent


S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) WHETHER the prohibition contained in S. 4 of the A. P. Vacant lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) would apply to an agreement for sale is the question involved in this reference.

( 2 ) FACTS : the defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement for sale dated 9-7-1973. A defence was taken by the appellant herein to the effect that the said agreement is void as the same being hit by Section 4 of the said Act. Admittedly the land in question is a vacant land. It measures about 30 cents (equivalent to 1497 sq. mt. ). The said Act was enacted pending enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which came into force on 5-6-1972. By reason of G. O. Ms. No. 369, Revenue (G), dated 26/03/1976, the said Act was, however, repealed by Act No. 13 of 1976. Admittedly, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has no application in relation to any land situate in the district of Prakasam or in the town of Ongole. A similar question came up for consideration before a Division Be


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top