C V NARAYAN REDDY Vs. KATANGURU RAGHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of four Civil Revision petitions common questions of law which are not only important but rather complex, do arise. This complexity is reinforced by the fact that varied views have been expressed in a catena of decisions by this Court, which apparently seemed to be conflicting and one is likely to be led into a labyrinth. No wonder our learned brother Jayachandra Reddy, J. despite the fact that he being a party to one of the Division Bench Judgments in M. Pocham V. Agent to the State Government, Adilabad, (AIR 1978 Andh Pra 242) wherein in some respects the points raised not being quite dissimilar to the one raised herein, felt and very rightly so in our view that points raised in this batch may be decided by a Division Bench and therefore has chosen to refer the matter to a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts in brief are the revision petitioners who are holding agricultural lands, were required to declare their holdings for determination as to whether they have any surplus land within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). The petitioners, being the owners of certain extents of land, had either alienated under unregistered sale deeds and the alienees were put in possession, or had under agreements of sale put the purchasers in possession of the land more than 12 years ago. Therefore, while filing the declarations they did not show these extents on the ground that they are not holding the land within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the Ceiling Act and in any case there was part performance of the contract and consequently Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act will come into play and, therefore could be invoked for the purpose of exclusion of these lands from their holdings. The respondents case as advanced before the lower Tribunals was that these lands were either alienated or the agreements were entered into for sale at a time when Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) was in vogue and alienation could not have been made without obtaining the permission from the Government. Since the purported alienations or agreements of sale are invalid and unlawful, neither Section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act nor Section 3 (1) of the Ceiling Act are of any avail to the petitioners. So the said lands are to be included in the holdings of the petitioners. Respondents case found favour with the lower Tribunals. Hence the revisions.

(3.) The crucial and the most important question that arises is whether or not the agreements of sale regarding the land under dispute, are valid and legal for not obtaining either the permission under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of validation certificate under Section 50-B of the Tenancy Act and consequently the petitioners are not entitled to invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act. Secondly, whether the petitioners are holders of the land in dispute and therefore the land so held be treated as a holding, within the meaning of Ceiling Act.