REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3054 OF 2006

Surender & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Gadda Balaiah & Ors. …Respondents

With  C.A. Nos.4111/2006, 4105/2006, C.A. No.2578/ 2010  C.A. Nos.__10330  of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7058 of 2008),  C.A. Nos.__10331  of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7059 of 2008),  C.A. Nos.__10332  of 2010  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18719 of 2008),  C.A. Nos.___10334  of 2010  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18721 of 2008),  C.A. Nos.___10333  of 2010  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18720 of 2008),  C.A. Nos.___10335  of 2010 (Arising of SLP (C) No.22038 of 2006, C.A. Nos.__10336-10337  of 2010 (Arising of SLP (C) No.22039 -22040 of 2006, C.A. No.__10338  of 2010  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4232 of 2007) C.A. Nos.__10339  of 2010  (Arising out SLP (C) Nos._34699 of 2010   CC 5014/2006) C.A. Nos.__10340   of 2010  (Arising out SLP (C) Nos._34700 of 2010    CC 6262/2007)

Contempt Petition No.335 of 2009 in C.A. No.2578 of 2010

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 7th October,  

2005  passed  by  a  Single  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  

Pradesh dismissing Civil Revision Petition No.1200/2003 filed  

by the State of Andhra Pradesh while allowing Civil Revision  

Petition  No.6708  of  2003  filed  by  the  respondents,  Gadda  

Balaiah & Ors. The High Court has in the process set aside  

order dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the Joint Collector,  

Ranga Reddy District and restored that dated 28th April, 2001  

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (“RDO” for short),  

Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District.  

3. The facts giving rise to the revision petitions filed before  

the High Court have been set out in the order passed by the High  

Court  and  those  passed  by  the  RDO  and  the  Joint  Collector,  

District, Ranga Reddy.  It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to  

repeat  the  same  over  and  again  especially  because  there  are  

numerous areas in which the factual assertions made by one party  

are stoutly disputed by the other.  The need for a full fledged  

factual  narration is  rendered unnecessary  also because  learned  

counsel for the parties are agreeable to the impugned order being  

set aside and the matter being remitted back to the High Court for  

a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The fact that  

such an agreement emerged only after the matter had been argued at  

considerable  length underscores  the significance  of the  issues  

2

that need to be addressed for a proper disposal of the controversy  

but have not been so addressed by the High Court in the order  

impugned.

4. Learned  counsel  for  the  parties  submitted  that  lest  the  

matters that need to be kept in focus are neglected at the hearing  

before the High Court it would be proper if specific questions  

that arise for consideration are formulated to enable the parties  

to make their submission on each one of those questions and also  

to enable the High Court to answer the same while disposing of the  

matter afresh. We had, with that object in view, adjourned the  

matter  to  enable  the  parties  to  formulate  the  questions  that  

according to them fall for determination by the High Court.  In  

response several questions have been suggested to us on either  

side totalling about 40 questions in all. Some of these questions  

are substantial while some are in the nature of arguments that  

could  be  addressed  before  the  High  Court.  Be  that  as  it  may  

learned counsel for the parties agreed that broadly speaking the  

following questions arise for determination by the High Court:

1. Whether  the  respondents  or  their  predecessors  were,  at  any  

stage,  recorded  as  protected  tenants  in  respect  of  land  

measuring 190 acres 17 guntas situate in survey Nos. 35, 36,  

37, 40, 42-47, 50-53 of Gachibowli Village, Seralingamapalli  

3

Mandal,  Ranga  Reddy  District,  Hyderabad  or  any  portion  

thereof.?

  2. Whether  the  findings  recorded  by  the  RDO  in  his  enquiry  

report  dated  27.7.1981  in  respect  of  (a)  the  status  of  

respondents as protected tenants u/s 37-A and (b) absence of  

proof of surrender in accordance with Section 19 of the Act,  

were challenged by Kastopa Corporation.  If not whether the  

said findings can be challenged by the successors in interest  

of Kastopa Corporation?

3. In case, questions No.1 and 2 above, are answered in the  

affirmative, whether the respondents or their predecessors  

had validly surrendered their tenancy rights in accordance  

with  the  procedure  prescribed  by  law.  If  so,  in  which  

proceedings and qua which survey numbers, was the surrender  

made?

4. Whether the sale of plots from the year 1986 onwards by M/s.  

Kastopa Corporation and the protected tenants in favour of  

the appellants and the petitioners in the concerned SLPs are  

valid  having  regard  inter-alia  to  the  provisions  of  the  

Tenancy Act?

5. Whether the lands covered by protected tenancy rights were  

liable to be excluded from the holding of Kastopa Corporation  

under the Ceiling Act and, if they had not been excluded  

4

initially,  whether  the  authorities  under  the  Ceiling  Act  

could  exclude  them  subsequently  at  the  instance  of  the  

protected tenants or the land holder?

6. Whether there was conversion of the land use for house sites  

and  non-agricultural  purposes  in  respect  of  the  lands  in  

question in accordance with law and if so, what is the effect  

of such conversion on the rights of the parties and from  

which date would the conversion be effective?

7. Whether surplus land to an extent of Ac 137.17 guntas in  

Survey Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 of Gachibowli  

Village had vested in the government under Section 11 of the  

Andhra  Pradesh  Land  Reforms  (Ceiling  on  Agricultural  

holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land  

Reforms Act’).  If so whether, any transaction by way of  

sale-deeds or otherwise by the d ‘protected tenants’ and the  

‘pattadars’ are void ab initio?                        

8. Whether the ceiling proceedings had attained finality with  

the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition (SR) No.24698 of  

1976 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide Order  

dated  28.4.1976.   If  so  whether  the  same  could  not  be  

reopened in Writ proceedings and in the absence of necessary  

parties  or  in  collateral  proceedings  like  Civil  Revision  

Petition No. 3577 of 1997?

5

9. Having obtained a consent order dated 20.9.1999 (Justice A.S.  

Bhate’s order) in Writ Petition No. 14708 of 1999 for grant  

of rights under Section 38(a) in respect of land in survey  

numbers 46, 47 and 53 (Paiki) to the extent of 37 acres,  

whether the respondents could mutually agree for issue of 38-

A sale Certificates qua land in survey numbers 51, 52 and  

part  53  sold  to  the  Petitioners  herein  for  valuable  

consideration?

10. Whether the respondents are entitled to certificates under  

Section 38-A over Survey Nos. 51, 52 & 53?

5. We make it clear that the formulation of the above questions  

is by no means exhaustive and that the High Court would be free to  

either reframe any of the above questions or to frame any further  

questions  that  in  its  opinion  arise  for  its  consideration.  

Needless to say that the parties shall also be free to suggest  

before  the  High  Court  formulation  of  any  further  question  is  

relevant and necessary for an effective and final adjudication of  

the matters in dispute.   

6. The revision petitions in question were heard by a Single  

Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel for the  

parties submitted and in our opinion rightly so that keeping in  

view  the  importance  of  the  issues  and  the  far-reaching  

6

implications the same have for the parties it would be appropriate  

if  the  revision  petitions  are  placed  before  a  Division  Bench  

constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of  

Andhra Pradesh for hearing.

7. Our  attention  was  also  drawn  by  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties  to  some  applications  that  have  been  filed  in  these  

proceedings for addition of the applicants as parties.  Since the  

matter  is  being  remitted  back  to  the  High  Court,  we  do  not  

consider it necessary to pass any order on the said applications  

except that the applicants shall be free to approach the High  

Court in this regard in which event the High Court may examine the  

prayer made by the applicants request in accordance with law.

8. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned  

order and remit the matter back to the High Court for being heard  

by a Division Bench of that Court in accordance with law.  The  

parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the  

High Court on 10th January 2011.  This would obviate the necessity  

of issuing notices to the parties and consequent delay in the  

disposal of the matter.   Since the matters are fairly old we  

request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the revisions  

and as far as possible dispose of the same by the 30th June, 2011.  

7

9.  Pending fresh disposal of the revision petitions by the High  

Court the interim orders passed by this Court on 20th February,  

2006 and 22nd September, 2006 directing maintenance of status quo  

shall continue to remain operative.  No costs.            

               10. In the light of what we have directed above, we do not see  

any reason to proceed further with Contempt Petition No.335 of  

2009 in CA No.2578 of 2010 which is hereby disposed of and the  

rule discharged.

……………………………J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR)

……………………………J. New Delhi (T.S. THAKUR) December 7, 2010

8