LAWS(APH)-1977-2-4

MALLAPALLI NARASINGA RAO Vs. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL PENUKONDA

Decided On February 04, 1977
MALLAPALLI NARASINGA RAO Appellant
V/S
LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL, PENUKONDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, filed under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, two contentions are raised by Sri S. V. Sundara Rajan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner: (1) that the Land Reforms Tribunal should have held that the lands in Survey Nos.320/1, 320/2 and 308/4, which were sold under unregistered agreements of sale, dated 12th September, 1970 to one Sri P. Chalapathi should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner ; and (2) that the land of an extent of Acres 1.14 cents in Survey No. 323/3 which was alleged to have been orally gifted on 19th July, 1976 to one Sri Gorantla Subramanya Sastry at the time of performing the obsequies of the petitioner's grandfather should also be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner.

(2.) The Land Reforms Tribunal held on point No.1, that the sale not having been effected by a registered deed no title passes to the transferee, and that under section 3 (i) of the Act the land covered by the agreement of sale has to be included in the holding of both the petitioner and the transferee. With regard to second point the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the gift was not reduced to writing-and such a gift of an immovable property without registered deed was not valid. On both the grounds the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the aforesaid lands covered by agreement of sale and the oral gift should be included in the holding of the petitioner.

(3.) On appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that the agreement of sale was not genuine, that even otherwise under the provisions of section 3 (i) (v) read with the Explanation of the Act the land covered by the agreement of sale is liable to be included in the holdings of both the petitioner and the transferee. With regard to the gift the Appellate Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Land Reforms Tribunal.