Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SRI S. VISHWANATHA RAJU ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (3) 327 JT 1995 (2) 528
1995 SCALE (1)855
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Delay of 3 years and 178 days is condoned.
3. Substitution allowed. Leave granted.
4. The only question that arises in these appeals is whether
the lands of vendors and the vendees under agreements to
sell, Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 dated October 20, 1970 and December
9, 1970 to the extent of 456.56 acres and 433.17 acres,
respectively, are liable to be included in their holdings.
This point is no longer res Integra. This Court in Yedida
Chakradhararao (dead) through Lrs. etc. etc. v. State of
A.P., 1990 (2) SCC 523, affirming the judgment in State of
A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, 1982 (2) SCC 1, held that when
the land was sought to be sold under an agreement to sell,
the land should be included in the holdings of the owner as
well as the person who held the land. In other words, this
Court has construed A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricul-
tural Holdings) Act, 1975 and held that the land should be
included in the holdings of the vendor as well as the
vendee. Though the agreement to sell does not confer title
nor divest the title of the vendor, the person who held the
land should also furnish necessary declaration under the Act
when he is in possession of the land in excess of the
ceiling area. In this view of the matter, the findings
recorded by the primary Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal
whether the agreement to sell brought about to defeat the
provisions of the Act are genuine has become irrelevant.
Consequently, the entire land covered by these two
transactions are to be included in the holdings of the
vendors as well as the vendees.
5. Ms. K. Amreshwari, the learned Senior counsel appearing
for the respondents contended-that when the firm had filed
the declaration before the primary authority in CC
No.2164/75 and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kandukur by its
order dated January 18, 1977 though did not accept the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
genuineness of the two transactions and included the same in
the holdings of the firm, on appeal by the Managing partner,
the appellate authority had held them to be genuine and
directed exclusion thereof, again with specific order. No
revision was filed in the High Court and therefore, there is
no S.L.P. The order thereby became final. The order
impugned in this Court is of the individual declaring
partner and orders against the other partners cannot be gone
into for directing the inclusion of their land in the sale
transactions as the respective holdings of the partners or
the firms, as the case may be. Technically, she is right.
It cannot be said that in appropriate cases, this Court is
prevented to take suo motu judicial notice of glaring
injustice having recourse to Art. 142 of the Constitution
for serving the ends of justice. The very purpose of the
Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975,
is to prescribe the maximum holding so that the excess land
becomes available for distribution among the landless
persons so as to serve the object of socioeconomic justice
envisaged in the Preamble to the Constitution and its Di-
rective Principles of State Policy. When a large extent of
land of about 900 acres is sought to be taken out of the
purview of the Act by the device of agreements of sale and
the officers overlook the same because of their negligence
or otherwise in not carrying the orders of authorities in
revision and when the facts came to the notice, this court
having taken suo motu notice of the same, meet out justice.
530
Accordingly suo motu notice is taken of Developed Nazul
Land) Amendment Rules the cases concerned and they are
treated as special leave petitions against the orders passed
by the appellate authority and considered its legality by
granting leave. Hencc, we hold that the lands covered under
Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 should be treated as lands held by the
vendor and the vendee. The Land Reforms Tribunal concerned
is, therefore, directed to reopen the CCs filed by the
respective partners and the managing partners of the company
and determine the surplus lands according to law and then
pass the appropriate orders according to law.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. (A copy
of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, for taking immediate action in the matter).
531