Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2002. Case: State of A.P. and Anr. Vs T. Yadagiri Reddy and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2002 |
Counsel | For Appellant: R. Sundaravardan, Sr. Adv., Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr. Singh and T.V. George, Advs. And For Respondents: P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv., K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Tulasi Reddy and Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. |
Judges | Lokeshwar Singh Panta and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ. |
Issue | Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 8, 34, 38, 38(A), 38(B), 38(E), 47, 48, 50, 50(B) and 50(B)(4); Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 13(1), 15, 16, 20, 20(5) and 21; Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act |
Citation | JT 2009 (1) SC 104 |
Judgement Date | November 28, 2008 |
Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
-
A Judgment by the High Court allowing a Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge of Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter called `the Appellate Tribunal' for short) is in challenge before us. The High Court while allowing the Revision, recognized the rights of the respondents herein as the protected tenants and further held that they become absolute owners of the land by purchasing the land in respect of which they were protected tenants. As a sequel, the High Court held that the land held by them could not be declared as a surplus land and could not be distributed as such. Before we approach the disputed questions, a factual background would be necessary.
-
Five respondents, namely, (1) Shri T. Yadagiri Reddy, (2) Shri T. Bal Reddy, (3) Shri T. Janardhan Reddy, (4) Shri T. Mohan Reddy, (5) Shri T. Satyanarayana Reddy are the sons of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy. According to them, the said Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was a protected tenant from (1) Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain, (2) Shri Khaja Nasir Hussain, (3) Smt. Razia Sultana W/o Mir Sadath Ali. It is the case of the respondents, as seen from their Counter affidavit that at the commencement of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Tenancy Act" for short) and more precisely, on 10.6.1950, their father Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was deemed to be the protected tenant of the land, admeasuring 123 Acres 17 guntas, bearing Survey Nos. 18 to 24 (old), i.e., new Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39 of Meerpet Revenue Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh. This land belonged to Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and Ors., who were the Jagirdars of that Village. Their father Late Shri Papi Reddy entered into an agreement on 25.2.1956 with Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and Ors. for transfer of land holders' interest in the said land to the tenants Late Shri T. Papi Reddy himself and the present respondents. The respondents asserted that this was under the provisions of Section 38-A & B of the Tenancy Act. They further pleaded that there was oral partition between Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and his sons, i.e., respondents, in which lands stood divided and that included also the concerned land to the extent of 123 acres 17 guntas, comprising of Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39. According to the respondents, the whole land was divided into six equal shares. They then pointed out that on 1.1.1975, A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Ceiling Act" for short) came on the anvil. Under the provisions of that Act, Late Shri T. Papi Reddy, as also the present respondents filed six separate declarations regarding the land owned and possessed by them and these declarations included the aforementioned Survey numbers also, which were obtained by them in their capacity as the protected tenants. It is the further case of the respondents that a Verification Report in respect of the declarations made by the respondents and Late Shri T. Papi Reddy were verified by the Verification Officer and the same Report was submitted to the Land Reforms Tribunal I-cum-Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter called `the Tribunal) of Ranga Reddy District, appointed under the Ceiling Act. This was on 31.7.1975 and 8.8.1975. In between 14.8.1975 and 22.10.1975, six orders came to be passed by the Tribunal. The dates and the other details of these Revenue cases, dealt with by the Land Reforms Tribunal, were as under:
S.No. Name of the C.C. Reference Date of Order Exhibits
Declarants No. No.
1. T. Papi Reddy (father) 1006/E/75 27.10.1975 A-12
2. T. Yadagiri Reddy 439/E/75 14.8.1975
3. T. Bal Reddy 440/E/75 14.8.1975 A-8
4. T. Janardhan Reddy 801/E/75 14.8.1975 A-6
5. T. Mohan Reddy 1009/E/75 14.8.1975 A-4
6. T.Satyanarayana 1143/E/75 14.8.1975 A-5
Reddy
3. So far so good. The respondents claimed that they continued to be in possession of the lands, since none of them had held more land than the ceiling area prescribed by the Ceiling Act. The orders passed in their case, shown in the Table above were also not appealed against by the State Government and had become final. While the matters in case of the respondents stood thus, a further development took place as follows.
-
On 22.7.1994, an order came to be passed by the Tribunal, purporting to hold the lands in Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39 in the holdings of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and Ors. (land holders) and it was declared in that order that the land holders therein were surplus holders. The respondents pointed out that this order was completely oblivious of the six orders passed in case of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and themselves, shown in the Table nor did they (Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and the respondents herein) join as parties to the proceedings. It was further pointed out that on 6.2.1996, a public notice was issued by the Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, calling for the objections in declaring Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39 as the surplus land, as held by Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others. However, Late Shri T. Papi Reddy had already expired on 21.11.1975, i.e., barely one month after the order in his case was passed. On 13.2.1996, the respondents filed the objections to the proposal of the said Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39, being surrendered as a surplus land.
The Tribunal rejected the objections filed by these respondents by order dated 22.7.1995 (2.3.1996), against which they filed an appeal on 11.8.1997 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, A.P. By its order dated 9.9.1997, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal only to the extent of 33 acres and 12 guntas in the aforementioned Survey Numbers, while the said appeal was rejected in respect of the remaining extent of 90 acres of land. That order was challenged by way of a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court, being Civil Revision Petition No. 4351 of 1997 and the said order was set aside by the High Court by the impugned order. The respondents, therefore, claimed that they were protected tenants and there was no question of the land comprising of 3 Survey numbers, being declared as surplus and it had long ceased to be the land of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others, and they had become the full owners of that land. In short, they claimed that they had purchased the said land in the capacity of the protected tenants in terms of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act. They further pleaded that if the proceedings under the Ceiling Act concerning them had become final, as such, those orders had become res-judicata against the State. They also pointed out that after the death of their father Shri T. Papi Reddy in the year 1975 and even before that they had partitioned the land and all through, they were treated to be the protected tenants earlier and thereafter, the land holders. They relied on substantial Revenue record in support of their status as the protected tenants, as also the Certificates issued by the Revenue Department under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, signifying their exclusive nexus with the land to the exclusion of the original land holder.
-
Before we advert to the arguments of Shri R. Sundaravardan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for State of Andhra Pradesh and the reply thereto by Shri P. P. Rao, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, it will be better to see the findings given by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court. The High Court, firstly found that the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeals to the extent of 33 acres 12 guntas, in respect of which the ownership Certificates were granted under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, in support of which the respondents had filed Exhibit A-2. The High Court also found that the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal in respect of 96 acres 12 guntas on the ground that these lands were covered by Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act. The respondents had filed the Certificates - Exhibit A-1. The High Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal had taken a view that in pursuance of the Agreement dated 22.5.1956, the land holders could not have purchased the lands, as there was no permission under Section 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act for such sales. However, the High Court proceeded on the ground that the lands were covered under Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act. The question before it was as to whether such lands held by a protected tenant and covered under Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act were liable to be excluded under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act from the ceiling area of the land holder. The High Court then noted that the respondents were never made parties to the Ceiling proceedings in respect of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others made on the basis of the declarations filed in C.C. Nos. 2476, 2477 and 2478 of 1975, in which the lands were shown in their holding. The High Court then took the note of the separate ceiling cases, which had attained the finality by the various orders passed between 27.10.1975 and 14.8.1975, in which it was held that the respondents were entitled to 1/6th share and they were non-surplus holders in respect of the lands held by them as the protected tenants. The High Court noted that those orders had become final. The High Court, therefore, took the note of the fact that in spite of this finality in those cases, these lands were again included in the holding of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and one another (the original respondent Nos. 3 & 4 before the High Court) and they were declared to be the surplus holders and further, suo moto proceedings were also initiated in respect of those lands. The High Court found that there was no dispute with the primary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Second Appeal No. 154 of 2001. Case: Ranveer Singh (deceased by L.Rs.) and Anr Vs State. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...473), Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and Anr., AIR 2010 SC 744, State of A.P. and another v. T. Yadagiri Reddy and others, JT 2009 (1) SC 104. They have also placed reliance on Division Bench decisions of this Court Murarilal and others v. State of M.P. and others, 1994 MPLJ 378......
-
Suit No. 2715 of 2004. Case: Bhargav Dilip Dholi Vs Smt. Chandrabala P. Dholi and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
...own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available. In the case of State of A.P. and Anr. v. T. Yadagiri Reddy and Ors. JT 2009 (1) SC 104, upon considering the earlier cases, it was observed that the original land holder had agreed to alienate the land under an agreement for ......
-
Second Appeal No. 154 of 2001. Case: Ranveer Singh (deceased by L.Rs.) and Anr Vs State. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...473), Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and Anr., AIR 2010 SC 744, State of A.P. and another v. T. Yadagiri Reddy and others, JT 2009 (1) SC 104. They have also placed reliance on Division Bench decisions of this Court Murarilal and others v. State of M.P. and others, 1994 MPLJ 378......
-
Suit No. 2715 of 2004. Case: Bhargav Dilip Dholi Vs Smt. Chandrabala P. Dholi and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
...own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available. In the case of State of A.P. and Anr. v. T. Yadagiri Reddy and Ors. JT 2009 (1) SC 104, upon considering the earlier cases, it was observed that the original land holder had agreed to alienate the land under an agreement for ......