Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Merla Venkata Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., represented by the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Kakinada - Respondent
Decided On : 03-08-77
LAND REFORMS - CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS - ALIENATIONS - BURDEN OF PROOF - COMPUTATION OF CEILING AREA - SECTION 7(1) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a declarant under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act), filed a revision petition challenging the findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal that certain alienations made by him and his wife were effected in anticipation of and with a view to defeating the provisions of the Ceiling Law. The petitioner contended that the alienations were true and valid, that he had discharged the onus cast on him under section 7(1) of the Act, and that the alienated lands could not be included in the holding of the family unit for computation of the ceiling area.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunals below were correct in their findings that the alienations were made in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding the Ceiling Law, and that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus cast on him under section 7(1) of the Act. The Court found that the petitioner had alienated a large extent of land within a short period of time, that there was no pressing necessity for the alienations, and that the reason given by the petitioner for the alienations, namely, to convert the lands into cash, was not convincing. The Court also found that the petitioner had failed to establish that the sale proceeds realized by the alienations were shown in the Income-tax and Wealth-tax returns and in what manner the said amounts were dealt with by the Tax authorities.
Issues: 1. Whether the alienations made by the petitioner were true and valid, and whether he had discharged the onus cast on him under section 7(1) of the Act. 2. Whether the alienated lands could be included in the holding of the family unit for computation of the ceiling area.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving that an alienation made on or after 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date was not 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, lies on the person who has made the alienation. (Section 7(1) of the Act) 2. Where any person has transferred any land on or after 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date, whether by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, and he has not proved that such transfer has not 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, such transfer shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person. (Section 7(1) of the Act) 3. In determining whether a person holds or is deemed to hold an extent of land in excess of the ceiling area, the Tribunal shall take into consideration not only the lands held by the person on the notified date but also the lands transferred by him on or after 24th January, 1971 which are expressly required to be included in the declaration to be filed by such person under section 8 of the Act.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under section 21 of the Andhra pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner filed a declaration under section 8 (1) of the Act showing that he was holding Ac. 119 82 cents of land. His wife filed a separate declaration showing an extent of Ac. 125-26 cents as held by her. Both the declarations were clubbed together as the petitioner and his wife constitute a family unit within the meaning of section 3 (f) of the Act. The declarations were referred to the Tahsildar and deputy Tahsildars of the concerned villages, and they submitted their verification reports. In the verification report relating to the declaration filed by the wife, it was mentioned that the extents of Ac. 20-7. cents of Karapa village, Ac, 2-61 cents of Chinamamidada village. 0-14 cents of Velangi village, belonging to her, were not shown in her declarator,. Survey No. 253/8 was wrongly mentioned as survey No. 253 with an extent of Ac. 2-40 cents while the correct extent is Ac. 2-27 cents The Tahsildar, Peddapuram, mentioned in his report that the lands of the extent of Ac. 41-39 cents in Anuru village of Peddapuram taluk, were gifted away by the wife to Merala Agastayya under a registered settlement deed, that the said agastayya, declared the said lands in his declaration, and therefore they were excluded in computing the holding of the family unit comprising of the petitioner and his wife.
( 2 ) THE petitioner filed objections with regard to the verification reports on behalf of himself and his wife. The main objection taken by the petitioner and his wife was that the following alienations made by them should be excluded in computing their holding:- date of sale-deed or agreement. (1) extent alienatcd (2) village (3) name of the alienee. (4) ex. P- 1 dt. 29- 9- 71 a. C. 10-35 velangi godavari Gangaraju (P W. 2) p- 2 dt. 6-10- 71 3-63 yandamuru marina Satyanarayana (P. W. 15) p- 3 dt. 5-ll- 71 5-60 2-66 velangi Yandamuru marina Govindu (P W. 3) p- 4 dt. l-2- 72 2-00 velangi marina Satyanaryana Murthy (P. W. 4) ex P- 5 dt. 9-12- 70 agreement 22-27 dharmavaram merla Atchamamba p- 6 dt. 4- 6- 71 (Sale-deed) 4-96 rechapalli -do- p- 7 dt. 31-10- 71 p- 8 dt. 31-10- 71 P- 9 -do- p-lodt. 6-10- 71 7-32 6-97 6-57 20-24 dharmavarm -do--do- surampalem saladi Subba Rao and Saladi Joginadham (P. W 5) C. Veeraraju (P. W. 6) d. Peeraraju and three others. P. Venkatarao and Krishna Murti (P. W. 8) p-11 dt. 9-12- 70 (Agreement of Sale) P-12 dt. 4- 6- 71 (Sale-deed) 18-12 vommangi c. Padmaja (Niece of (P. W. 14) alienations by wife : - P-15 dt. 10-12- 71 4-24 yandamuru m. Ramanayamma (P, W. 12 s mother) p-16 -do- 5-25 velangi neteti Srterama charyulu (P. W. 9) p-17 -do- 5-44 do- a. Narayanamma (P W. 11) p-18 dt. 4-11-70 (Agreement of sale) 83-04 2-40 anuru Karapa merla Mangayamma (P. W. 10) p-20 dt. 9- 9- 71 P-21 dt. 24- 6- 52 (Trust deed) " in respect of Lands in Karapa and chinamamidada villages. " gift- deed dt. 21-10- 71 14-00 yandamuru m. Veerayya.
( 3 ) THE petitioner filed Exs. P-13 and P-14 typed copies of his wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1972-73, and Exs. P-22 and P-23 typed copies of Wealth-tax returns submitted by his wife for the assessment year 1972-73. He examined in all 15 witnesses including himself.
( 4 ) THE petitioner deposed as P. W. 1 as follows:- He effected the sales as he became old and there was none to assist him in the management of the land situated in far off places. As he was not getting proper income from the said lands, he sold them away with a view to keep cash in the bank. He had to get some more amounts from the vendees in respect of each of the alienations towards the balance of sale consideration. He did not effect the alienations in anticipation of and with a view to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Law. He was accounting for the amounts received and to be received in his Income-tax and We
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
