Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE HYDERABAD
B. SRI ATCHUTHANANDA SWAMY, TAMADA GOPAL KRISHNA, JJ.
Makam Pedda Gangaiah and others - Appellant
Vs.
Potta Venkata Subba Reddy and others - Respondent
Appeal No. 1079 of 1987
Decided On : 23-12-2002
For the Appellant : Mr. E. Ayyapu Reddy, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. Hemendranath Reddy, Advocate for Mr. C. Pattabhi Rama Rao, adv.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act 1973 - Section 7 - Registration Act, 1908 – Section 47 – Evidence – Illegal – Acquittal - For purpose of determining whether any transaction of nature referred to in sub-section (1) in relation to a land situated in this State took place on or after notified date on which document relating to such transaction was registered shall notwithstanding anything in Sec.47 of Registration Act, 1908 – Held, But the cat is out of the bag, from endorsement reverse of agreement wherein they have stated that they have paid and they have paid under endorsement - Further they agreed to pay remaining amount as and when defendants demand same - They also filed alleged cist receipts in this case they are - It is interesting to see that appellants paid taxes and also land revenue as per endorsement made by Village Officer in separate books name of each of appellant and only for the receipts were issued in an appropriate forum - All these appellants paid land revenue per land revenue receipts issued by Village Administrative Officer in name of each of appellant - If Village Administrative Officer is acknowledging land revenue paid by them by making endorsement in a note book court do not find any reason to deviate from procedure in giving a receipt for – Further when land was transferred in name of appellants in most authentic documentary evidence would be dangles where possession and ownership is reflected but they have not produced any evidence whatsoever to that effect - Further from evidence of Plaintiff it is seen that they are carrying earth to lands of on their cots for wages - It is also their case that one son-in-law of respondent was scribe of agreement - Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
B.S.A. Swamy, J.
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.14 of 1984 on the file of the then Subordinate Judge, now Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, dated 12th February, 1987 in dismissing the suit for specific performance on the ground that unless the proceedings under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 hereinafter called as "Land Ceiling Act' are not finalised and unless it is established that the agreement of sale entered into on 28-11-1971 conveying the suit schedule property is not intended to defeat the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, granting the equitable relief of specific performance does not arise, the present Appeal is filed.
2. The facts of the case are that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force with effect from 01-01-1975. Under Section 7 of the Act, if any person has transferred his immovable property by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner what -so-ever on or after 24th January, 1971, but before the notified date (i.e.) 2nd May, 1972, such transfer was declared as voidable transactions and the transferor should prove that he has not transferred the property with a view to avoid or defeat the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings and if he fails to prove that the transfer was effected not in anticipation of the Ceilings Act, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person. Under Section 7(2) of the Act all transactions that have taken place on or after 2nd May, 1972 and before the notified date, in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 shall be null and void. Under Section 7(7) of the Act, if any question arises 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 among other things shall be determined by the Tribunal, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the effected parties, and its decision thereon shall, subject to an appeal and a revision under this Act, be final. Under Section 17 of the Act. no person whose holding, and no member of family unit, the holding of all the members of which in the aggregate, is in excess of the ceiling area as on the 24th January, 1971 or at any time thereafter, shall on or after the notified date, alienate his holding or any part thereof by way of sale, lease gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructuary mortgager or otherwise, or effect a partition thereof. It may be useful to extract Section 17 of the Act for better understanding of the matter:
'17. Prohibition of alienation of holding:-
(1) No person whose holding, and no member of family unit, the holding of all the members of which in the aggregate, is in excess of the ceiling area as on the 24th January, 1971 or at any time thereafter, shall on or after the notified date, alienate his holding or any part thereof by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise, or effect a partition thereof, or create a trust or convert on agricultural land into non-agricultural land, until he or the family unit, as the case may be, has furnished a declaration under Section 8, and the extent of land, if any, to be surrendered in respect of his holding or that of his family unit has been determined by the Tribunal and an order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under this Act taking possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area and a notification is published under Section-16; and any alienation made or partition effected or trust created in contravention of this section shall be null and void and
