STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus VATSAVYI KUMARA VENKATA KRISHNA VERMA

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--1· 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
VATSAVYI KUMARA VENKATA KRISHNA VERMA 
JANUARY 6, 1999 
.., 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
Andhra Pradesh Land Ref om1s (Ceiling on AgJicultural Holdings) Act, 
1973 : Section 21. 
c 
Transfer of laiuJ-Made within a sh01t span of only 15 days between 
24-1-1971 and before the notified date i.e., 1-1-1975-0ne sale transaction 
was in favour of declarant's own father while the other three pertained to 
highly valuable rich wet lands-Vendees of some transactions given facility of 
·~ 
payment by instalments spread over years--Declarant constntcted house only D 
after four years of the sale transactions-Held, Before any transaction is 
upheld under S.7(1) it is to be shown that the transfer is not only genuine but 
also had to be effected for some compelling reasons and was backed up by 
some sort of necessity--ln the circumstances of the case, trans/ ers are effected 
in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding and def eating the provisions of E 
the Act-High Cowt in revision e1Ted in holding sale transactions to be 
genuine and not hit by S. 7( 1 ). 
Section 21-Revision unde,.......//igh Court's power in-Nature of---,4.ppel-
"":-
late Tribunal, the final court off acts, found declarant transfelTed lands with 
F 
a view to defeating the provisions of land ceiling Act-Held, S.21 is in pari 
materia with S.115 CPC-Thus jurisdiction of High Court thereunder is not 
an appellate jurisdiction-High Co wt, there/ ore, ca1111ot inteif ere with pure 
findings off act-It can inteifere only when the findings of lower court suffer 
from jurisdictional e1Tors--l11 the circumstances of the case, High Court e1Ted G 
in interfering with the pure findings off act while exercising jwisdiction under 
... 
S.21-Further; R.17(2) of A.P. Land Refom1s Rules cannot extend or curtail 
the scope of S.21-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.115-A.P. Land Refom1s 
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, R.17(2). 
Constitutio11 of India, 1950: Articles 39, 136 and 142. 
H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Beneficial Legislation-lnteiference with-By Supreme Court-Held, 
.,. 
"" 
Supreme Court cannot countenance attempts to get out of the sweep of 
legislation like Agricultural land ceili11g Act which is mea11t to subserve the 
com111011 good--Decisio11 also co11tra1y to law laid down by Supreme 
Court-Supreme Cowt cannot put an imp1imatur on illegal acts by refusing 
B to inteifere under Art. 136. 
~ 
Administrative Law : 
t
Subordinate Legislation-Scope and ambit of-Held, Cannot extend 
r 
' 
scope of substa11tive provisio11s of a11 Act. 
c 
The respondent was holding some agricultural lands which were 
governed by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural 
Holdings) Act, 1973. The respondent and his wife sold some of the lands 
under four registered sale deeds within a short span of 15 days between 
24-1-1971 and the notified date i.e. 1.1.1975. One sale transactioQ was in 
D. favour of the respondent's own father while the other three. sale transac· 
,.._ 
tions pertained to very highly valued potentially rich wet lands. The 
vendees of some transactions were given the facility of payment by instal-
ments spread over years. The respondent constructed a house only after 
four years of the sale of lands. 
E 
The Land Reforms Tribunal held that the aforesaid four sale trans· 
actions were genuine transactions and they were not made with a view to 
circumventing the provisions of the Act. Consequently, excluding them 
~:-
from consideration, the ceiling area and the surplus holdings of the 
respondent were computed. However, the Land Reforms Appellate 
F Tribunal held all that all the four transactions ought not be considered as 
~-
• 
they were effected by the respondent and his wife in anticipation of and 
.
with a view to avoiding the provisions of the Act. But the High Court in 
revision under Section 21 of the Act held that all the four transactions were 
.. 
genuine and not hit by Section 7(1) of the Act. Hence this appeal. 
G 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 21 of the 
Act was in pari materia with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 and, therefore, the High Court erred in allowing the revision by 
interfering with the pure findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate 
Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act; and that 
r. 
H the respondent had no compelling reasons t

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