The provisions of Section 7(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and Rule 7(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, which require notice to be given to all affected parties, including alienees, before any decision is made regarding the surrender of land, are mandatory and non-compliance with these provisions renders the surrender void ab initio.

A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) RATHER important question is involved in this revision. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are: Respondent No. 1 that is the original declarant-landlord, is said to have sold under an agreement of sale Ex. A 1 dated 29-1-1971 certain lands in favour of the petitioners herein who are seven in number. Later on these petitioners under Ex. A. 2 which is a registered lease deed dated 28-4-1969 leased out the said lands in favour of third parties who are lessees. The declarants in their declaration stated that they sold these lands covered by Ex. A-1 under an agreement of sale, erroneously, the primary Tribunal rejected the alienations on the ground that they are not registered. It is, however, an admitted fact that in the proceedings before the primary Tribunal no notice by way of an opportunity to the alienees was given within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Andr. ra Pradesh Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). However, that order of the primary Tribunal became final since there was no appeal or revision by the landlord and he surrendered towards excess the land covered by Ex. A-1 which was accepted by the Government and allotted to the third parties. However, having learnt about the surrender, the petitioners raised objections which were turned down. But, on appeal the Appellate Tribunal allowed the objections and remanded the matter back to the primary Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter after giving due notice to the landlord. The primary Tribunal, however, disposed of the matter without giving any notice to the land-lord, holding that he will have to surrender the excess land covered by Ex. A-1. An appeal was preferred by the landlord which was allowed. Hence this revision by the alienees who are the petitioners herein.

( 2 ) THE contention inter-alia raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is mandatory for the Tribunal under sub-section (7) of section 7 to give notice to all the affected parties and since in the declaration itself It was specifically stated that the lands have been sold to the alienees, the alienees who are the petitioners herein, are entitled to notices and since admittedly, no notices were given to the alienees, any order passed and any consequence that follows will be void abinitio. Further under sub-section (8) of section 7, even if an alienation has been made with a view to avoid or defeat the provisions of the Act, the alienee is entitled to a notice and any land sold to him will be liable for surrender but necessarily the same land which he has purchased, in cases of contingency contemplated under sub-section (8) of section 7. That apart, under sub-rule (5) of rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, the alienees are entitled to notices at the time of surrender and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions will vitiate the entire proceedings. Since admittedly in this case, these provisions have not been complied with, any orders passed would be ineffective, illegal and void. Mr, Pattabhirama Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 argues that one of the alienees gave evidence and that is sufficient participation in the enquiry within the meaning of sub section (7) of section 7. Even if one alienee has participated in the enquiry, that is adequate and no notice need be given to all the alienees. Before considering the arguments and counter-arguments addressed by the counsel on both sides, the relevant provisions may be noticed which are extracted hereunder:-"section 7: (5) xx xx xx (6) xx xx xx (7) If any question arises- (a) whether any transfer or creation of a trust effected on or after the 24th January, 1971 had been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of, any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings: (b) whether any alienation made,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document