Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY, C.KONDAIAH
C.V.Narayan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.through Special Tahsildar - Respondent
Decided On : 04-10-79
LAND REFORMS - CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT - VALIDITY OF AGREEMENTS OF SALE - SECTION 47 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA) TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 53-A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 3 (I) OF THE CEILING ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are holding agricultural lands, were required to declare their holdings for determination as to whether they have any surplus land within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricutulral Holdings) Act, 1973. The petitioners, being the owners of certain extents of lands and the alienees were put in possession, or had under agreements of sale put the purchasers in possession of the land more than 12 years ago. Therefore, while filing the declarations they did not show these extents on the ground that they are not holding the land within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the Ceiling Act and in any case there was part performance of the contract and consequently Section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act will come into play and, therefore could be invoked for the purpose of exclusion ot these lands from their holdings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that subsequent to the deletion of Section 47 of the Tenancy Act, no sanction is at all necessary for the finalisation even with regard to agreements of sale entered into prior to the deletion of Section 47, by way of registration of sale deeds or otherwise. A fortiori, the possession of the lands given in pursuance of agreements of sale are quite valid and lawful and therefore, the parties concerned are entitled to avail the provisions of Section 53-A of the transfer OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882.
Issues: 1. Whether or not the agreements ot sale regarding the land under dispute, are valid and legal tor not obtaining either the pcimission unoer Section 47 ot the lenancy act or Validation Certificate under Section 50-B of the Tenancy Act and consequently the petitioners are not entitled to invoke section 53-A ot the transter of Property Act. 2. Whether the petitioners are holders of the land in dispute and therefore the land so held be treated as a holding within the meaning ox the Ceiling Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression holding and the expression held by a person occurring in section 3 (i), must necessary mean to be in actual possession. To be held otherwise, would be doing Violence to the language and also intendment. land held by a person as an owner means and must necessarily mean, that one has to have not only title but also actual possession. A fortiori, if the owner of the land has put the transferee in possession of the land in part performance of the contract for sale, such land can be included only in the holding of the transferee and cannot simultaneously be computed in the holding of the transfer or as well, for that land is not held by him as an owner .
Final Decision: The court held that the alienee or transferee who has been in possession under an agreement of sale entered into at a time when Section 47 was in force will be entitled to sue for specified performance and is not deprived of his right under Section 53-A to protect his possession, on payment of balance of consideration, without the necessity obtaining any permission since Section 47 stood deleted, either on and from 24-1-1972 or even any time posterior to the deletion of section 47, retention. of Section 50-B notwithstanding.
( 1 ) IN this batch of four Civil Revision Petitions common questions of law Which are not only important but rather complex, do arise. This complexity is reinlorced by the fact that varied views have been expressed in a catena of decisions by tbis Court, which apparently seemed to be conflicting and one is likely to be led into a labryntb. No wonder our learned brother jayacbandra Reddy. J. , despite the fact that he being a party to one of the division Bench Judgments m M. Pocham vs. Agent, State Government wherein some respects the points raised out being quite disimilar to the one raised herein, felt and very rightly so in our view that points raised in this batch may be decided by a Division Bench and therefore has chosen to refer the matter to a Division Bench.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief are the revision petitioners who are holding agricultural lands, were required to declare their holdings for determination as to whether they have any surplus land within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricutulral Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ceiling Act ). The petitioners, being the owners of certain extents of lands and the alienees were put in possession, or had under agreements of sale put the purchasers in possession of the land more than 12 years ago. Therefore, while filing the declarations they did not show these extents on the ground that they are not holding the land within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the Ceiling Act and in any case there was part performance of the contract and consequently Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of property Act will come into play and, therefore could be invoked for the purpose of exclusion ot these lands from their holdings. The respondent s case as advanced before the Lower Tribunals was that these lands were either alienated or the agreements were entered into for sale at a time when section 47 of the Andbra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (herematter referred to as the lenancy Act ) was in vague and alienation could not have been made without obtaining the permission from the Government. Since the purported alienations or agreements of sale are invalid and unlawful, nether Section 53-A of the Transfer ot Property Act nor Section 3 (i) ot the Ceiling Act are of any avail to the petitioners. So the said lands are to be included in the holdings of the petitioners. Respondent s case found favour m the luwer Tribunals. Hence the revisions.
( 3 ) THE crucial and the most important question that arises is whether or not the agreements ot sale regarding the land under dispute, are valid and legal tor not obtaining either the pcimission unoer Section 47 ot the lenancy act or Validation Certificate under Section 50-B of the Tenancy Act and consequently the petitioners are not entitled to invoke section 53-A ot the transter of Property Act. Secondly, whether the petitioners are holders of the land in dispute and therefore the land so held be treated as a holding within the meaning ox the Ceiling Act.
( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the first question a short resume of the material and the provisions of the relevant Sections of the lenancy Act is necessary. The Hyderabad Tenancy Act which is now termed as Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was passed m 1950, one ot us objects being to regulate the alienations ot agricultural lands. Chapter v relates to restrictions on transfer of agricultural lands. Section 47, as it was originally made (this section was subsequently amended and later deleted provide that "not withstanding anything contarned in any other law for the time being in force or in any decree or order of a Court, no permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Tahsildar". Sub-section (2) lays down the procedure and Sections 48 and 49 stipulates certain restrictions on th
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
