LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus S.B.P.V. CHALAPATHI RAO ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v S.B.P.V. CHALAPATHI RAO ETC. OCTOBER 24, 1994 B [KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling) on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1973--Section,s 7( 1) aitd 21-220 acres of land sold between December 16, C 1971 and December 27, 1971-Transfers made in anticipation of and with a view to avoid and defeat provisions of the Act-H e/d: Transfers to be dis- regarded for purpose of computation of ceiling area. Respondents sold 220.25 acres of land by way of fourteen sale deeds executed on five different days between December 16, 1971 and December D 27, 1971. The transfers made were disregarded for the purpose of the computation of ceiling area of the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling) on Agrtcultnral Holdings Act 1973 by the Land Reforms Tribunal holding that the transfer were made in anticipation of and with a view to awaiting or defeating the objects of the Act. This finding was reversed by the Lands Reforms Appellate Tribunal while holding that E the lands were sold to raise funds for setting up of indnstries. The High Court upheld the finding of the Appellate Tribunal by dismissing the revision petitions in limine these appeals by the State are against the order of the Appellate Tribunal as upheld by the High Court. F The respondents contended that there is no justification whatsoever to reverse the finding of the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that the sales in dispute were made in good faith to meet the expenses to be incurred for the expansion of sugar industry. On the other hand, it was stated by the State that the proposal for the expansion of the sugar industry was mooted sometime in June 1970 but it was thereafter in April 1972 that the applica- G lion for license to expand the industry was made and the license was granted on November 26, 1973. According to the State, in December 1971, when the Lands were sold there was no question·of sending any money on expansion of the industry. It was contended that the only reason to sell the land in December 1971 was to defeat the provisions of the Act which came H to be enforced on May 2, 1972. 714 STATE v. CHALAPATHI RAO 715 The question for consideration was whether the transfers were to be A disregarded for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the respondent under the Act. Allowing the State appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling) on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, the bonafide or genuine nature of the transfer or the sale being in goods faith has no relevance at all. What is required to be proved under the Act by the land owner is that the transfer was not made in anticipation of and to avoid or defeat the provisions of the B Act. Section 7(1) of the Act not only requires the transfer to be valid and C genuine but also makes it obligatory for the transferor to prove that there was some compelling reason to sell the land at that point of time. Some sort of necessity or compulsion to sell the land has to be proved. [721-C-D] Meria Venkata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors., Civil Appeal D No. 2649177 decided on 11-2-1992 by Supreme Court, relied on. Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1981] 2 SCR287 andlagmal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR (1991) SC 1928, distinguished. 1.2. In the present case the respondents might be wanting to raise E money for the'expansion of the sugar industry but there is nothing on the record to show as to why they chose December 1971 ·when the Act was in the legislative process to sell more than 220 acres of land. They ·applied for the licence sometime in 1972 and the licence was in fact granted to them in November 1973. There was no question of making any •xpansion F till the time the licence was granted. They could have waited till November 1973 when they obtained the licence. The only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that they sold huge chunk of lands in December 1971 in anticipation of, and with a view to avoid and defeat the provisions of the Act which came into force on May, 1972. The Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in reversing the order of the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and that of the High Court are set aside. [722-A-D-F] Forest Officer, Thanjavur and Anr. v. S. Nagnatha AY.Y"' and Ors., G [19791 3 sec 466, distinguished. H 716 SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.