IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6541 OF 2000

Badireddy Avatar Maher Baba        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Tallapu Nagaraju (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

1. By an order passed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms

(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act’), the Land Reforms

Tribunal,  Kakinada, East Godavari District, decided the surplus area case of Shri

Surya Prakasa Rao (deceased), his wife and minor children including the appellant

herein and declared that they were holding 1.3560 standard hectares of land in excess

of their entitlement.  Thereafter, the appellant offered to surrender some parcels of

land including the land comprised in survey nos. 14/2 and 13/4 of Tantikonda village.

On  receipt  of  the  offer  of  surrender  made  by  the  appellant,  the  Land  Reforms

Tribunal  issued   notice  in  Form-VIII.   Respondent  no.  1  filed  objections  to  the

proposed surrender claiming that the land comprised in survey nos. 14/2 and 13/4 of

Tantikonda village had been purchased by him on 23.2.1981 and, therefore, the same

could not be surrendered.  The Land Reforms Tribunal rejected his  objections by

observing that in

...2/-

- 2 -  

view of Section 17(1) of the Act, the transfer made after 1.1.1975 is null  and void.

Appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate

Tribunal, East Godavari (Kakinada), by holding that he does not have the locus to file

objections because the purchase made by him was hit by Section 17(1) of the Act.

2. Feeling  dissatisfied  with  the  appellate  order,  Respondent  No.1  filed

Revision under Section 21 of the Act.  The High Court approved the view taken by

the Land Reforms Tribunal and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, that the purchase

made by respondent no.1 is violative of Section 17(1) of the Act and dismissed the

revision petition.  While doing so, the High Court observed that respondent no.1 is a

bonafide   purchaser  and,  therefore,  the  authority  should  call  upon  the  owner  to

surrender some other land acceptable to the Tribunal and, thereafter, action may be

taken in respect of the land in possession of other persons.  Accordingly,  the High

Court  directed  that  while  taking  the  possession  of  the  land,  the  authority  shall

exercise proper discretion under clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Undisputedly,  respondent  no.1  purchased the land comprised  in  survey

nos.  14/2 and 13/4 after the appointed date,  i.e.,  1.1.1975.    Therefore,  the  Land

Reforms  Tribunal  and  Land  Reforms  Appellate  Tribunal  did  not  commit  any

illegality by invoking Section 17(1) of the Act and holding that the transfer was void.

This being the position, the appellant is right in contending that respondent no.1 had

no right to object to surrender of particular parcels of land by the declarant and the

High Court was not justified in giving the impugned direction.  The question relating

to the locus of a person, who purchased the land after the appointed date,

....3/-

- 3 -  

was considered by this Court in Appineni Vidyasagar vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [2004(11)

SCC 186], and was answered in negative.  In that case it has been held that in the

absence of a valid transfer of title, the transferee does not have the right to object to a

surrender by the holder and Section 10(5) does not confer locus upon him to do so.   

5. In view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned decision, the appeal is

allowed.   The  direction  of  the  High  Court  to  the  concerned  authority  to  exercise

proper discretion under clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, while

taking possession of the land, is set aside.  No costs.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, December 10, 2008.