SWARAJYALAXMI AND ORS. versus AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS, MEDAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 16-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P,.-
V. SWARAJYALAXMI AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS, MEDAK AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 
I 97 3-Section 23-Exemption for surplus land-Entitlement of-land 
mortgaged in favour of Bank~'lubsequent passing of Ceiling Act-Tribunal c 
holding surplus land liable to be surrendered to the Government-Appellate 
Tribunal holding land exempt from the Act-Justification of-Held: Bank is 
only a simple mortgagee having no possession over the land-Bank not 
acquiring title over the land pursuant to recovery of the mortgaged debt due 
to the bank-Thus, Bank has no saleable interest over the /ands-Hence 
declarants not entitled to exemption for the surplus land under Section 23(j). D 
Section l I-Vesting of land rnrrendered-Mortgagee of land-Right to 
proceed against land for realization of mortgage money-Held: Mortgagee 
has no such right since land being surplus land has been surrendered-Such 
land vests in the Government fi'ee fiwn all encumbrances. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136--lnteiference-Scope of-Held: 
Jurisdiction under the Article can be invoked only to advance cause of justice-· 
However, when selling aside of the judgment of High Court results in 
resurrection of series of other illegal orders passed by subordinate courts, this 
Court may not inte1fere. 
f 
In 1968, owners of 300 acres of land mortgaged the land in favour 
of bank and obtained a loan. Subsequently Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms 
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force. Owners of 
land filed declarations. Tribunal held that half of-the extent measuring 
300 acres was surplus land under the Act which was to be surrendered to G 
the Government. Bank challenged the order. On remand Tribunal again 
confirmed its earlier order. Meanwhile, Bank filed a suit for realisa,tion 
of the mortgage money. Suit was decreed. Bank filed execution petitions 
and also filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It contended that they 
be permitted to proceed with the recovery of mortgage money, even 
575 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A against the land which was found to be surplus at the hands of the 
mortgagors. Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals. Pursuant to the order 
of the Tribunal State took over the surplus land. Thereafter, on the basis 
order of the Appellate Tribunal, Bank brought the surplus land under 
court auction sale. Appellants purchased the land in a court auction sale. 
B However, before the confirmation of sale and issue of sale certificate, State 
Government challenged the sale. Executing Cou~tileld that the Bank did 
not acquire the land in the course of recovery o( the amount due to them 
and thus, the land was not exempted under Section 23(1); and that .the 
Bank held only the right to security in respect of that land. Accordingly 
it set aside the sale. 
c 
Appellant-purchasers challenged the order. It was found that the 
private sale was effected for inadequate consideration by playing a fraud. 
Thereafter order granting permission to the judgment debtors/declarants 
to sell the surrendered land by private negotiation was set aside. Executing 
Court then pursued the matter further and assumed that the sale had been 
D set aside as the same was for inadequate consideration. It increased the 
value of the land and issued the sale certificate in favour of the appellants. 
Tltereafter, Returning Officer took steps to distribute the surplus land and 
to prepare assignment proposals. Appellate Tribunal set aside the 
proceedings. However, High Court set aside the order of the Appellate 
\ 
E Tribunal and held that the surrendered land would have to be distributed 
among landless poor persons as envisaged by the Ceiling Act and the Rules 
framed thereunder. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-purchaser contended that the Bank was a mortgagee of 
the land in question and the land held by the ~ank is specifically exempted 
p under Section 23(1); that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal 
permitting the Bank to sell the surplus land in the Court auction sale to 
realize the mortgage amount due to it was perfectly valid; that this order 
had become final and binding as between the parties inter-seas it was not 
challenged by the State; that the appellants being bona fide purchasers of 
the surplus land in a court auction sale, they are entitled to get the 
G pr

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