K V V SATYANARAYANA Vs. YEMAMADALA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of topical importance relating to delivery of agricultural land in pursuance of an execution court sale vis-a-vis the land reforms enactments, which have been recently passed by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh, arises in this revision petition. Our learned broher A. V. Krishna Rao, J placed this, ma ter before a Division Bench in view of this importance.

(2.) This is an auction-purchaser's revision petition. In execution of a decree in O.S. 279/71 on the file of the District Munsif's Razole, the decree-holder got attached agricultural land of Ac. 16-35 cents on 22nd of January, 1972. It is stated that the total holding of the judgment-debtor is Ac. 19-38 cents. The attached land was sold on 8-10-1973 and the same was confirmed by the Court on 25-9-1974, The auction-purchaser filed E.A. 1506/74 for delivery of the property. The judgment-debtor who is the respondent, filed E.A.No. 377/5 seeking dismissal of the auction-purchaser's application for delivery, in view of the prohibition of alienation of agricultural land contained in the Andhra Pradesh Act 13 of 1972. The executing Court partly allowed this application staying delivery of the land until the Tribunal constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Ceiling Act', decides the validity of the Court sale under Sec. 7 (7) of that Act. It may be noticed here that the notified date for the Ceiling Act is 1-1-1975 and the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition of Alienation Act', had its effect by virtue of the earlier ordinance from 2nd May, 1972. The court sale was thus held after the Prohibition of Alienation law came Into force. The lower Court took the view that Prohibition of Alienation Act and the Ceiling Act treat alienations like sale in contravention of the former Act as null and void and if a question arises as to whether a sale was null and void, it will have to be decided only by the Tribunal constituted under Sec.7(7)of the Ceiling Act. Consequently, It stayed the delivery of the land sought by the auction purchaser till such decision is rendered by the Tribunal.

(3.) Sri G.R. Subbarayan appearing for the auction-purchaser petitioner raises three contentions before us. The first of them relates to facts of the case. In his submission the total holding of the judgment-debtor i.e. Ac. 19-38 cents was dry land and was consequently below the limit of ten hectares which is the specified limit of holding of dry land for the purpose of the Prohibition of Alienation Act. On the other hand, the respondent's case is that an extent of Ac.7-00 was double cross wet, as it was being cultivated by the bore wells for the last 15 years. Ac. 7.00 of wet land was equivalent of Ac.17.50 cents of dry land as per the provisions of the Prohibition of Alienation Act. Consequently the total extent of the land held by the judgment debtor on 2-5-1972, when calculated in terms of dry land, comes to Ac. 29-88 cents t.e more that ten hectares, Sri Subbarayan disputes that the extent of Ac. 7 00 is wet, but this contention does not appear to have been raised before the lower court. The judgment-debtor in his application E.A 377/75 staced that Ac. 7.00 was double crop wet land and so, his total holding should be reckoned as Ac. 29-88 cents dry. This averment was not demurred to by the auction-purchaser in his counter. Since the statement of the judgment debtor wss not denied by the auction-purchaser in his counter. Me Court naturally proceeded and rightly so in our opinion, chat the total extent of the holding could be reckoned at Ac. 29-88 cents and therefore exceeded tha specified limit of ten hectares of dry land fixed under the Prohibition of Alianation Act. The auction-purchaser can not raise this question for the first time in a revision petition, having failed to deny the statement of the iudgment debtor in the lower Court. Had such a denial been made, that Court would have certainly recorded necessary evidence and a finding in regard to It. We will have to, therefore accept for the purpose of the present petition as the lower court has done, that the judgment debtor had on 2nd May, 1972 more than ten hectares of dry land in his holding