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 No. 369, Revenue (G), dated 26/03/1976, the said Act was, however, repealed by Act No. 13 of 1976.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 Bench of this Court in C. Ramaiah v. Mohammadunnisa Begum, AIR 1981 Andh Pra 38 : 1980 (2) Andh LT 85 wherein the Division Bench (Coram : Chennakesav Reddy and Ramachandra Raju, JJ.) observed :"where a suit was brought for specific performance relating to an agreement of sale in respect of vacant land entered into prior to the coming into force of the Act, the suit could not be decreed in view of Sections 4, 5 and 10 of the Act. Any registration made after coming into operation of the Act although in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into prior to the Act shall be null and void. Under sub-section (2) of Section 4 even a registration made in pursuance of a decree or order of a Civil Court after the coming into operation of the Act shall be null and void. Therefore, there cannot be any specific performance of an agreement of sale or even execution of a decree for specific performance of such an agreement after the coming into force of the Act in respect of vacant land covered by the Act. Further, S. 10 of the Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over any other law inconsistent therewith or any custom, usage or ageement, or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority. Thus by virtue of the provisions of the Act, the performance of the contract had become impossible and there was a frustration of the agreement of sale. The protection under the Section can only be invoked in respect of agreements which are invalid for want of registration. The section cannot be invoked to validate other agreement. An agreement which is invalid under any other law falls outside the scope of the protection and neither the section nor the doctrine of equity on which the Section is founded can validate an agreement which the law says is invalid. "however, in C. V. Narayana Reddy v. K. Raghava Reddy, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 89, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the question as regard non-disclosure of the alienated lands in the declarations under the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, ( the Ceiling Act for brevity) by the petitioners therein on the ground that they are not "holding" the lands within the meaning of S. 3 (1) of the Ceiling Act and in any case there was part performance of contract, consequent-whereto S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act will come into play and as a result thereof the said lands would be excluded from computation of excess area, held :"subsequent to deletion of S. 47 of the Tenancy Act, it is needless to establish for the purpose of availing S. 53-A of the T. P. Act, that the contracts of sale entered into during the period when S. 47 was in vogue were with permission. Since it stood deleted, it is no more imperative to show that any such permission was obtaine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document