http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI S. VISHWANATHA RAJU ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (3) 327        JT 1995 (2)   528  1995 SCALE  (1)855

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Delay of 3 years and 178 days is condoned. 3. Substitution allowed.  Leave granted. 4. The only question that arises in these appeals is whether the  lands  of vendors and the vendees under  agreements  to sell, Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 dated October 20, 1970 and  December 9,  1970  to the extent of 456.56 acres  and  433.17  acres, respectively,  are liable to be included in their  holdings. This  point is no longer res Integra.  This Court in  Yedida Chakradhararao  (dead)  through Lrs. etc. etc. v.  State  of A.P.,  1990 (2) SCC 523, affirming the judgment in State  of A.P.  v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, 1982 (2) SCC 1, held  that  when the  land was sought to be sold under an agreement to  sell, the land should be included in the holdings of the owner  as well as the person who held the land.  In other words,  this Court  has construed A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on  Agricul- tural  Holdings) Act, 1975 and held that the land should  be included  in  the  holdings of the vendor  as  well  as  the vendee.  Though the agreement to sell does not confer  title nor divest the title of the vendor, the person who held  the land should also furnish necessary declaration under the Act when  he  is  in possession of the land  in  excess  of  the ceiling  area.   In this view of the  matter,  the  findings recorded by the primary Tribunal and the appellate  Tribunal whether  the agreement to sell brought about to  defeat  the provisions  of  the Act are genuine has  become  irrelevant. Consequently,   the  entire  land  covered  by   these   two transactions  are  to  be included in the  holdings  of  the vendors as well as the vendees. 5.  Ms. K. Amreshwari, the learned Senior counsel  appearing for  the respondents contended-that when the firm had  filed the   declaration  before  the  primary  authority   in   CC No.2164/75  and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kandukur  by  its order  dated  January  18, 1977 though did  not  accept  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

genuineness of the two transactions and included the same in the holdings of the firm, on appeal by the Managing partner, the  appellate  authority had held them to  be  genuine  and directed  exclusion thereof, again with specific order.   No revision was filed in the High Court and therefore, there is no  S.L.P.  The  order  thereby  became  final.   The  order impugned  in  this  Court is  of  the  individual  declaring partner and orders against the other partners cannot be gone into  for directing the inclusion of their land in the  sale transactions  as the respective holdings of the partners  or the  firms, as the case may be.  Technically, she is  right. It  cannot be said that in appropriate cases, this Court  is prevented  to  take  suo motu  judicial  notice  of  glaring injustice  having recourse to Art. 142 of  the  Constitution for  serving the ends of justice.  The very purpose  of  the Land  Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,  1975, is to prescribe the maximum holding so that the excess  land becomes  available  for  distribution  among  the   landless persons  so as to serve the object of socioeconomic  justice envisaged  in the Preamble to the Constitution and  its  Di- rective Principles of State Policy.  When a large extent  of land  of  about 900 acres is sought to be taken out  of  the purview  of the Act by the device of agreements of sale  and the  officers overlook the same because of their  negligence or  otherwise in not carrying the orders of  authorities  in revision  and when the facts came to the notice, this  court having taken suo motu notice of the same, meet out justice. 530 Accordingly  suo  motu notice is taken  of  Developed  Nazul Land)  Amendment  Rules  the cases concerned  and  they  are treated as special leave petitions against the orders passed by  the appellate authority and considered its  legality  by granting leave.  Hencc, we hold that the lands covered under Ex.A-1  and  Ex.A-4 should be treated as lands held  by  the vendor and the vendee.  The Land Reforms Tribunal  concerned is,  therefore,  directed  to reopen the CCs  filed  by  the respective partners and the managing partners of the company and  determine the surplus lands according to law  and  then pass the appropriate orders according to law. 6.   The appeals are accordingly allowed.  No costs. (A copy of  this  order be sent to Chief  Secretary,  Government  of Andhra Pradesh, for taking immediate action in the matter). 531