STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus SHRI S. VISHW ANATHA RAJU ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 20-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
SHRI S. VISHW ANATHA RAJU ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 20, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
B 
A.P. Land Refonns (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975: 
Lands of Vendors and Vendees under agreement to sell-Whether liable 
to be included in their holdings-Held: yes. 
C 
Constitution of India, 195o-A.lt. 142-Suo motu judicial notice of 
glaring injustice-Recourse to-Notices issued and treated as special leave 
petitions-Orders of appellate authorities-Reviewed-A.P. Land Refonns 
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975. 
The question which arose in these appeals against the High Court 
judgment, was whether the lands of Vendors and Vendees under agreement 
to sell were liable to be included in their holdings. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the impugned 
order was of the individual declaring partner and orders against the other 
partners could not be gone into for directing the inclusion of their land in 
the sale transactions as the respective holdings of the partners of the 
firms. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
D 
E 
F 
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that in appropriate cases, this Court is 
prevented from taking 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 A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) 
Act, 1975, is to prescribe the maximum holding so that the excess land G 
... ~ 
becomes available for distribution among the landless persons so as to 
serve the object of socio-economic justice envisaged in the Preamble to the 
Constitution and its Directive Principles of State Policy. [531-G] 
2. When a large extent of land of about 900 acres is sought to be H 
529 
\ 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 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 took suo motl.t notice of the cases -concerned, 
treating them as special leave petitions against the orders passed by the 
B appellate authority for considering its legality, by granting leave. 
[531·H, 532·A·B] 
t 
3. The lands covered under Ex. A-1 and Ex.A-4 should be treated as 
.I
lands held by the vendor and the vendee. The Land Reforms Tribunal 
concerned is, directed to repen the CCs filed by the respective partners 
.., 
c and the managing partners of the Comp~ny and determine the surplus 
lands according to law and then pass appropriate orders according to law. 
(532-C] 
Yedida Chakradhararao (dead) through Lrs. etc. etc. v. State of A.P., 
[1990] 2 SCC 523 and State of A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, [1982] 2 SCC 1,. 
D relied on. 
-v. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2943-50 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.79 of the Andhra Pradesh 
E High Court in C.R.P. NO. 3042, 3066, 3068, 3004, 3074, 3003, 3045 and 3046 
of 1979. 
K. Ram Kumar and Ms. Anjani Aiyagari for the Aprdlants. 
F 
Ms. K. Amareswari and G. Narasimhulu for the Respondents. 
.. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard counsel for the parties. 
. 
Delay of 3 years and 178 days is condoned. 
·~ 
G 
Substitution allowed, Leave granted. 
-,,f ....... 
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 
H dated October 20, 1970 and December 9, 1970 to the extent of 456.56 acres 
\ 
.. r 
STATE OF AP .. v. S.V. RAJU 
531 
and 433.17 acres, respectively, are liable to be included in their holdings. A 
This point is no longer res integra. This Court in Yedida Chakradhararao 
(dead) through Lrs. etc. etc. v. State of A.P., (199l'l) 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 
B 
held the land. In other words, this Court has constured AP. Land Reforms 
(Ceiling on Agricultural 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.