Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
P.Parameshwar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
A.P.rep., by the Spl.Tahsildar (Land Reforms) R.R.Dist.Collector RR.District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-19-88
LAND REFORMS - SURRENDER OF LAND - AGREEMENT OF SALE - ESTOPPEL - PRICE - REVIEW - POWER OF - ENCUMBRANCE - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - ACQUISITION OF LAND - SHARES IN LAND - STRUCTURES ON LAND - SURRENDER IN LIEU OF STRUCTURES.
Fact of the Case:
The declarants, respondents 2 to 4 herein, filed their declarations under Section 8 of the Act and after due determination under Section 9 when it was declared that they held in excess of ceiling area, certain lands owned by them situated at Nagireddipalli, Uangareddy district were sought to be surrendered. Thereupon, objections were raised by the petitioners herein on the ground that they have purchased those lands under an agreement of sale entered into between the declarants and themselves.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the agreement of sale is void and unenforceable, and that the petitioners cannot claim any estoppel against the statute. The Court also held that the declarants are entitled to surrender the land at Nagireddipalli, and that the price of Rs. 500/- per acre is not arbitrary or unilateral. The Court further held that there is no power of review vested in the primary Tribunal, and that the surrender of the land is not an acquisition of land by the State. The Court also held that the declarants can surrender an extent of Ac. 182.20 cents of land from out of the land situated at Nagireddipalli.
Issues: 1. Whether the declarants are estopped from surrendering towards excess of their holdings from out of the land at Nagireddipalli regarding which there is an agreement of sale entered into between the parties? 2. Whether the price that was paid at the time of agreement of sale for the land, which is sought to be surrendered by the declarants, was Rs. 800/- per acre, whereas the amount that has to be now paid by the declarants is only rs. 500/- per acre ; and in case the declarants surrender the said land and the same is accepted, it would cause hardship and pecuniary loss to the petitioners? 3. Whether the said land at Nagireddipalli was originally purchased in the name of seven persons, but later the same was treated as undivided. Therefore, if it is not allowed to be undivided, they are entitled to surrender only 136 acres? 4. Whether Mrs. N. T. Rama Rao s land is included in the joint family property which is already divided. Hence, the same is wrong? 5. Whether the family of Sri N. T. Rama Rao has been treated as joint family and so, S. Nos. 32 and 40 have been erroneously accepted towards surrender? 6. Whether there is no power of review under Section 10 (5) (a) (ii), as earlier a decision was taken not to accept the surrender, which has been later reviewed and so, it is erroneous? 7. Whether on some of the lands so surrendered, there are structures and knowingly the same have been surrendered, which will be a burden on the exchequer, as the compensation which has to be paid will be very heavy? 8. Whether Under Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, the land held by a person and which is under the personal cultivation, cannot be acquired if it is within the ceiling limit applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The agreement of sale is void and unenforceable, and the petitioners cannot claim any estoppel against the statute. 2. The declarants are entitled to surrender the land at Nagireddipalli, and the price of Rs. 500/- per acre is not arbitrary or unilateral. 3. There is no power of review vested in the primary Tribunal, and the surrender of the land is not an acquisition of land by the State. 4. The declarants can surrender an extent of Ac. 182.20 cents of land from out of the land situated at Nagireddipalli.
Final Decision: The revision petitions are dismissed.
( 2 ) THESE two revision petitions are preferred against an order madeby the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short the Act ). The declarants, respondents 2 to 4 herein, filed their declarations under Section 8 of the Act and after due determination under Section 9 when it was declared that they held in excess of ceiling area, certain lands owned by them situated at Nagireddipalli, Uangareddy district were sought to be surrendered. Thereupon, objections were raised by the petitioners herein on the ground that they have purchased those lands under an agreement of sale entered into between the declarants and themselves. The objections were rejected by the primary tribual and on appeal being dismissed, these revision petitions have been preferred.
( 3 ) THE contentions advanced in this behalf by the petitioners are : (1) The declarants are estopped from surrendering towards excess of their holdings from out of the land at Nagireddipalli regarding which there is an agreement of sale entered into between the parties. (2) The price that was paid at the time of agreement of sale for the land, which is sought to be surrendered by the declarants, was Rs. 800/- per acre, whereas the amount that has to be now paid by the declarants is only rs. 500/- per acre ; and in case the declarants surrender the said land and the same is accepted, it would cause hardship and pecuniary loss to the petitioners (3) The said land at Nagireddipalli was originally purchased in the name of seven persons, but later the same was treated as undivided. Therefore, if it is not allowed to be undivided, they are entitled to surrender only 136 acres. (4) Mrs. N. T. Rama Rao s land is included in the joint family property which is already divided. Hence, the same is wrong. (5) The family of Sri N. T. Rama Rao has been treated as joint family and so, S. Nos. 32 and 40 have been erroneously accepted towards surrender. (6) There is no power of review under Section 10 (5) (a) (ii), as earlier a decision was taken not to accept the surrender, which has been later reviewed and so, it is erroneous. (7) On some of the lands so surrendered, there are structures and knowingly the same have been surrendered, which will be a burden on the exchequer, as the compensation which has to be paid will be very heavy. (8) Under Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, the land held by a person and which is under the personal cultivation, cannot be acquired if it is within the ceiling limit applicable. Therefore, the acceptance of the lands so surrendered is unconstitutional.
( 4 ) THE question in the main that arises is whether it is competent inthis case for the declarants to surrender Land at Nagireddipalli towards excess declared in their holding?
( 5 ) BEFORE answering, the relevant format with necessary particularsmay be straitened. Sri N. T. Rama Rao and his sons filed their declarations under the Act in C. C. Nos. 2713, 2714, 2715 and 2716 of 1975 before the land Reforms Tribunal in respect of their holdings The declaration in c. C. No. 2715/75 was filed by Sri N. T. Rama Rao showing himself, his wife, four minor sons and three unmarried daughters as member of his family unit. His three major sons Jaikrishna, Saikrishna and Harikrishna filed three separate declarations for their respective family units though it does not appear that there was any division of their hinds by metes and bounds. The primary Tribunal by its order dated 15-6-1977, by clubbing all the declarations, held that the family was holding a total extent of 8. 6320 standard Holdings (S. H.) and deducted 3. 0000 S. H. on account of three major sons and allowed the ceiling area of 1. 8000 S. H. to Sri N. T. Rama rao in view of the total number of members of his family unit, within the meaning of Section 3 (f)
AI
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
