LexTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. versus T. SURYACHANDRA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. A v. T. SURYACHANDRA RAO JUL y 25, 2005 [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] B Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973-Land Ceiling-Surrender of surplus land-Accepted by Authorities- The Land found already acquired under Land Acquisition Act-Tribunal C demanded alternative land in lieu of the land surrendered-High Court held that having accepted the surrender, after enquiry it was not open for Tribunal to vary the order-On appeal, ·held: Tribunal rightly modified its order- Tribunal had the power to correct its error when fraud was committed Words and Phrases: "Fraud"-Meaning of D Respondent submitted declaration regarding determination of his ceiling limit of land under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. After determination of the ceiling limit, E respondent surrendered certain land as excess land, and the same was accepted by the Authorities. Subsequently it was noticed that the land which was surrendered was already acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1898. Therefore Tribunal passed order demanding declaration of alternative lands as surplus in lieu of the land earlier surrendered. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. In Revision, High Court held that F Tribunal having accepted the surrender after enquiry, it was not open to it to vary the order, even though it has power to reopen the matter, when fraud is practiced. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The order of the High Court is erroneous. There is no dispute that the land which was offered for surrender by the respondent had already been acquired by the State and the same had vested in it. This was clearly a case of fraud. Merely because an enquiry was made, Tribunal was not divested 809 G H 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. A of the power to correct the error when the respondent had clearly committed a fraud. The Tribunal was justified in modifying the earlier order and varying it. The Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error in upholding it. [812-B; 816-A] Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. Mis. Shaw Brothers, [1992) 1SCC534; Roshan B Deen v. Preeti Lal, [2002) 1 SCC 100; Ram Preeti Yadav v. UP. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, [2003) 8 SCC 311; Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of T.N. and Anr., [2004 J3 SCC 1; Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, [1996) 3 SCC 310 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu -y. Jagannath, [1994) 1 sec 1, relied on. c Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., [2003) 8 SCC 319; Dr. Vim/av. Delhi Administration, [1963) Supp. 2 SCR 585 and Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd, [1996) 5 SCC 550, referred to. Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702, referred to D Webster's Third New International Dictionary; Black's Legal Dictionary, Concise Oxford Dictionary; Halksbury's Laws of England, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4461 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh E High Court in C.R.P. No. 2217 of 1996. F Debojit Borkakati, Manoj Saxena, Amit Meharia and Mohanprasad Meharia for the Appellants. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Srinivas Kotni and John Mathew for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Manda! Revenue Officer (in short the 'Revenue Officer') Peddapuram, East Godavari call in question legality of G the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By .the impugned order the High Court held that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada (in short "the Appellate Tribunal") and the Land Refomis Tribunal, Kakinada (in short the "Tribunal") were not justified in holding that the respondents had fraudulently taken advantage by H suppi:ession of facts; thereby taking benefit under the Andhra Pradesh Land STATEOFA.P. v. T.SURYACHANDRARAO[PASAYAT,J.] 811 Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, I 973, (in short 'the Act'). A Basic features of the case which need to be noted are as under: The respondent as declarant submitted a declaration as regards determination of his ceiling limit of land under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal passed an order dated 16.11.1978 determining the ceiling limit of the declarant B to be surplus and declared 0.4388 S.H. land to be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.