LexSTATE OF A.P. & ANR. versus T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 792
A
STATE OFAP. & ANR.
*
..
v.
T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2002)
B
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND V.5,
SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
-,,:
·ANDHRA ·PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON
c AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973:
. ss. 8 and 13 - Holding .of original land owner held by
protected tenant :-- HELD: Lands in question having stood
transferred to protected tenant uls 38-E of Tenancy Act, shall
D be excluded from the holding of the owner and included in
the holding of the tenant - Besides, on coming into force of
the Act, the tenant and his sons had filed declarations u/s 8,
in respect of the land in question .and on due verification the
Land Tribunal had held the said land with them as not surplus,
~
'
+
E and (he said decision having become final, again the said
land could not have been included in the holding of the
original land owners - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950- ss. 38, 38-B, ·38-
E and 50-8(4).
.>
F
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950:
•
*
ss. 38, 47 and 48- Right of protected land to purchase
land- HELD: Land purchased byprotected tenant from land
G holders out of the income of joint famiiy property, became joint
family property so as to be open for partition and status of
protected tenan{ extended to other members of undivided
4-.
family - Sections 47 and 48 which provided for permission
y
before transferswere made, were deleted w.e.f. 1969.
H
792
STATE OFA.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS. 793
> -+
ss. 38-B and 38-E - Land holders relinquishing their A
+
rights in land in favour of protected tenant - HELD: In the
instant case, land- holders had relinquished their interests in
the lands in question in 1983 and certificates had been issued
in favour of the tenants, as suoh, the said lands could not have
been included in the holding of the /and-owners for being B
declared as surplus under Ceiling Act - Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - s. 13.
s. 50-8(4) - Power of Collector to re-open suo-motu, the
certificates issued - HELD: In the instant case, 1there was no C
impropriety in issuing the certificate, to justify suo motu action
on the part of the Collector - Besides, the rights of parties have
already been crystallized and on the basis thereof, further
rights have been created in favour of several persons.
A public notice under the Andhra Pradesh ·Land
D
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was
issued on 6.2.1996 inviting objections to declare the lands
in question admeasuring 123 acres 17 guntas shown as
Survey Nos.24 to 30 and 39 as surplus with the original
land holders. The respondents filed objections
E
contending that their father was in possession as tenant
of the said lands on 10.6.1975, the date on which the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 came into force, and as such
he was the protected tenant in respect thereof, that their
F
father had entered· into an agreement on 25.2.1956 with
-.,1-
the land holders in terms of s.38 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950; thereafter the land in question was divided in six
equal shares amongst 5 respondents and their father;
G ,
that on coming into force of the Ceiling Act, their father
and they filed six separate declarations, and on
~ verification by the Revenue authorities, the Land Tribunal
passed six separate orders on 14,.8.1975 and 27.10.1975
holding the land in question as non-surplus with the
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A respondents and their father, 'Who died subsequently;
+ '
that no appeal was preferred against the said orders
which attained finality, and, therefore, the instant
proceedings were barred by principle of res-judicata. The ·. ·
respondents relied on the certificates issued u/s 38-E of
B the Tenancy Act and contended that the lands in question
were entitled to be excluded u/s 13 of the Ceiling Act from
the holdings of the original land holders. The Tribunal
rejected. the objections. The appeal of the respondents
...
was partly allowed by the Land Reforms Appellate
c Tribunal. However, the High Court in the revision petition
allowed the claim of the respondents in respect of the
entire land in question.
In the instant appeal filed by the State, the questionExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.