PALURU RAMAIAH Vs. P NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rather important question is involved in this revision. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are: Respondent No. 1 that is the original declarant-landlord, is said to have sold under an agreement of sale Ex. A 1 dated 29-1-1971 certain lands in favour of the petitioners herein who are seven in number. Later on these petitioners under Ex. A.2 which is a registered lease deed dated 28-4-1969 leased out the said lands in favour of third parties who are lessees. The declarants in their declaration stated that they sold these lands covered by Ex. A-1 under an agreement of sale, erroneously, the primary Tribunal rejected the alienations on the ground that they are not registered. It is, however, an admitted fact that in the proceedings before the primary Tribunal no notice by way of an opportunity to the alienees was given within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Andr.ra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). However, that order of the primary Tribunal became final since there was no appeal or revision by the landlord and he surrendered towards excess the land covered by Ex. A-1 which was accepted by the Government and allotted to the third parties. However, having learnt about the surrender, the petitioners raised objections which were turned down. But, on appeal the Appellate Tribunal allowed the objections and remanded the matter back to the primary Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter after giving due notice to the landlord. The primary Tribunal, however, disposed of the matter without giving any notice to the land-lord, holding that he will have to surrender the excess land covered by Ex. A-1. An appeal was preferred by the landlord which was allowed. Hence this revision by the alienees who are the petitioners herein.

(2.) The contention inter-alia raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is mandatory for the Tribunal under sub-section (7) of section 7 to give notice to all the affected parties and since in the declaration itself It was specifically stated that the lands have been sold to the alienees, the alienees who are the petitioners herein, are entitled to notices and since admittedly, no notices were given to the alienees, any order passed and any consequence that follows will be void abInitio. Further under sub-section (8) of section 7, even if an alienation has been made with a view to avoid or defeat the provisions of the Act, the alienee is entitled to a notice and any land sold to him will be liable for surrender but necessarily the same land which he has purchased, in cases of contingency contemplated under sub-section (8) of section 7. That apart, under sub-rule (5) of rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, the alienees are entitled to notices at the time of surrender and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions will vitiate the entire proceedings. Since admittedly in this case, these provisions have not been complied with, any orders passed would be ineffective, illegal and void. Mr, Pattabhirama Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 argues that one of the alienees gave evidence and that is sufficient participation in the enquiry within the meaning of sub section (7) of section 7. Even if one alienee has participated in the enquiry, that is adequate and no notice need be given to all the alienees. Before considering the arguments and counter-arguments addressed by the counsel on both sides, the relevant provisions may be noticed which are extracted hereunder:-

(3.) In the circumstances, the order under revision, which is misconceived and erroneous, is set aside by holding that the entire proceedings in this case, right from the order passed in the first instance on the declaration filed by the declarants-landlords down to surrender proceedings, the acceptance of surrender and also the allotment to the third parties pendente lite, cannot confer any rights on the third parties and are void ab initio. Hence, the entire proceedings are set aside. Status quo with regard to possession of the lands as it was on the date of the acceptance of surrender is directed to be maintained. The matter, however, is remanded to the primary Tribunal for deciding the case de novo after giving notices to all the affected parties including the alienees and after giving due opportunity to all the parties to let in fresh evidence, due determination of the holding of the declarant be made. It may, however, be further observed that the alienation of land under the agreement of sale does not require any registration and is perfectly legal and void which is now well settled by a number of decisions of this court. Under section 53-A of the Transfer of Properly Act, if the agreement is in writing and if possession of the property has been given to the alienee, that is sufficient for the purpose of 'alienation' within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. In the light of these observations, the primary Tribunal may now decide the case. All the parties will be at liberty to adduce fresh evidence.