THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ANR. versus S. VENKATA RAMANAIAH AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 748 · Decided: 18-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ANR. 
v. 
S. VENKATA RAMANAIAH AND ANR. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation of 
1959-Regulation No. II of 1963 and Regulation No. I of 1970-Sections 3 
(l)(a) and 3(2)(a)-Transfers of Lands in Agency tracts-Provisions of Sec. 
C 3(1) are prospective in natur~Section 3(1)(a) r/ws 3(2)(a) hit only those 
transfers of lands in Agency tracts which take place after the advent of Section 
3 (1)(a). 
The respondents· had purchased the land in their occupation on 
D 19.6.1919 from a non-tribal. After the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh 
(Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Regulation of 1959 as amended by 
Regulation I of 1970, the competent authority initiated proceedings against 
the respondents on the ground that the said sale in their favour was hit 
by Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation and, therefore, the respondents were 
E 
F 
liable to be evicted from the land in question which had to be restored to 
the original vendor or his successor in interest. The Deputy Collector 
(Tribal Welfare) passed an order of eviction against the respondents. The 
respondents' appeal before the District Collector failed. The respondents 
filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ 
petition while holding that the provisions of the Regulation were not 
retrospective in nature and could not affect past transactions even though 
the land was situated in a District which fell within the definition of 
'Agency Tract' as laid down in section 2(1) of 1959 Regulation, and 
therefore, the said transaction could not be processed or scrutinised by 
the authorities functioning under the Regulation and they had no jurisdic-
tion to treat the said transaction to be null and void under the Regulation. 
G These appeals had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. 
The appellants contended that the provisions of the Regulation I of 
1959 as well as the amending Regulation II of 1963 and Regulation I of 
1970 had retrospective effect and consequently whether the transactions 
H pertaining to the lands in question situated within the scheduled tracts 
748 
,> 
DY. COLLECTOR i: S.V. RAMANAIAH 
749 
covered by the Regulations were entered into between tribal transferors A 
and non- tribal transferees or even for that matter between non-tribal 
transferors and non-tribal transferees at any time in past got covered by 
the prohibitory and invalidating sweep of section 3(1) of the Regulation; 
that even assuming that the provisions of these Regulations were prospec-
tive in nature the concerned transferees after the coming into force of these 
Regulations in the scheduled areas were not entitled to continue in pos-
session as their possession became invalid at least from the dates on which 
these Regulations applied to the areas where these lands were situated, 
and that the orders of eviction as passed by the authorities below were 
rightly passed and could not have been interfered with by the High Court. 
The respondents submitted that the provisions of the Regulations 
are purely prospective in nature as there was no express provision inade 
in these Regulations to make them restrospective from only back date, nor 
B 
c 
do the wording of these Regulations exhibit any necessary intendment 
about restrospectivity and that they could not effect the vested and accrued 
rights in favour of the transferees pursuant to old transactions in their D 
favour which had taken effect years prior to the coming into operation of 
these Regulation. 
The question raised for consideration was whether the provisions of 
the Regulation have restrospective effect and can affect transfers made E 
prior to the coming into force of the said Regulations. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. On the express language of the Andhra Pradesh 
(Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation of 1959, it was prospective in 
F 
nature and even by necessary intendment it could not be posited that the 
framer of the Regulation wanted to give it any retrospective effect. [760-G] 
1.2. Provisions of Section 3(1) of the Regulation are purely prospec-
tive in nature and do not affect past transactions of transfers affected 
between tribals and non-tribals or between non-tribals and non-tribals G 
themselves in the Agency Tracts at a time when neither Regulation I of 
1959 nor Regulation II of 1963 or Regulation I of 1970 w

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