Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 573 (AP)

Dasari Gnana Prakasam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-16

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2023
ORDER : The prayer of the Writ Petitioner reads as follows:- “…. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 4th respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner in the Adangat/Pahani from the pattadar column and entering the name of the deceased mother of the petitioner's Vendor, in respect of the land in Sy.No. 215 admeasuring ac. 7.68 cents situated at 75-Talluru village, and the land in Sy.No. 48/1B admeasuring Ac. 5.74 cents situated at Balusupadu village, pedakurapadu Mandals, Guntur District, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the Law, and consequently direct the respondents to delete the name of the deceased mother of the Vendor of the petitioner and to grant such other relief or reliefs. …” 2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the respondent authorities have deleted the name of the petitioner in Adangal/Pahani in the Pattadar column and entered the name of the deceased mother of the petitioner’s vendor in respect of the land in Sy.No.215 admeasuring Ac.7.68 cents situated in 75-Talluru Village and the land in Sy.No.48/1B admeasuring Ac.5.74 cents situated at Balusupadu village, Pedakurapadu Mandals without issuing any notice and without following due procedure as contemplated under the law and consequently prayed to direct the respondents herein to incorporate the name of the petitioner in Adangal/Pahani. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and would content that Smt. Saripudi Alivelamma wife of Venkaiah who possessed an extent of land Ac.70.00 cents in Parasa, Balusupadu and Kambhampadu villages of the same mandal, as she has no issues as such executed a registered will in the name of one Smt. Sai Kumari, who is the vendor of the petitioner herein and in pursuance of orders in RC.No.1661/2009/SDT, dated 16.04.2012 issued by the L.R.T and R.D.O., Guntur, legal heir of the declarant have to surrender the excess land equal to 1.1431 S.H., for which a notice in From- VI dated 16.02.2015 was issued to Smt. Sarapudi Sai Kumari (legal heir and adopted daughter to Smt. Sarapudi Alivelamma). But, she died on 16.03.2015, even before serving the said notice. Hence the Land Reforms Tribunal, Guntur, issued Form-VI notice to Sri Kolanati Srinivasa Rao, husband and legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Sarapudi Sai Kumari dated 14.08.2015. But, she died on 16.03.2015, even before serving the said notice. Hence the Land Reforms Tribunal, Guntur, issued Form-VI notice to Sri Kolanati Srinivasa Rao, husband and legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Sarapudi Sai Kumari dated 14.08.2015. But the said Sri Srinivasa Rao also did not surrender the land. 4. It is the further case of the respondents herein that the legal heir of the declarant had irregularly sold away the land in Sy.No.215 of 75-Tyallur Village and Sy.No.48/1B of Balusupadu village to the petitioner without adhering to the land ceiling proceedings, hence the petitioner name was not incorporated in the Adangal/Phani as the land sold in contravention of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Smt. Sarapudi Alivelamma has sold the land in the year 2008 to the petitioner herein, by the date the official respondents herein have not issued any notice or initiated any proceedings under section 7 or 8 of A.P. Land Ceiling Act. As there is no land ceiling proceedings are pending against the declarant, as on the date of purchase of the property by the petitioner from the original declarant i.e., Smt. Sarapudi Alivelamma, as such the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser, therefore pleaded that the proceedings under the land ceiling act are not binding on the petitioner. 6. It is the case of the petitioner herein that petitioner name was reflected in the Adangal and Pahani and without issuing any notice they have abruptly deleted the name of the petitioner and it is also the case of the petitioner herein that the respondents herein have obtained legal opinion from the learned Government Pleader and he has furnished the legal opinion dated 01.12.2014, stating that before issuing the Pattadar Pass Book could have verified the relevant and connected records, once the Tahsildar issues Pattadar Pass Book in the Revenue Records in favour of Dasari Gnana Prakasam, who is the Writ Petitioner herein at this stage, he cannot go back and say that computer Adangal could not be granted, and it amounts to Rule of Estoppel in negating the issuance of computer Adangal. 7. 7. Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings in RC.No.139 of 2009, dated 30.01.2009, directed the Tahsildar to issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioner herein for an extent of Ac.7.68 cents in Sy.No.215 of 75-Tyallur Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, which was purchased and got registered in the name of the petitioner herein. Despite the said proceedings, the Tahsildar has not incorporated the name of the petitioner in Adangal/Pahani in the pattadar column and in the web land. Hence, the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to incorporate the name in web land and computer adangal. 8. The official respondents are not oblivious of the fact that the petitioner herein had purchased the property as per their own counter in the year 2008 and they have issued notice under Form VI dated 16.02.2015, basing upon the proceedings in Rc.No.1661/2009/SDT dated 16.07.2012 to the husband of the declarant, Smt. Sarapudi Saikumari who sold property. 9. Under Section 7 clause (1) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (herein after called as Act), when any transfer takes place on or after 24.01.1973, but before the notified date that is 01.01.1973, then the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on such person. 10. Under clause 7 of sub-section 7, if any question arises as enumerated in Section 7 such question shall be determined by the Tribunal, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties, and its decision thereon shall, subject to an appeal and a revision under this Act, be final. 11. Under clause 8 of sub-section 7, if the Tribunal decides that any transfer, or creation of trust had been effected in anticipation of, then the tribunal shall treat the entire holding thus left over as the extent of land to be surrendered under the provisions of this act by the person or the family unit as the case may be. 12. 12. Under clause 2 of Section 8, Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall have power to issue notice requiring any person holding land or residing within its jurisdiction who, it has reason to believe, holds or is deemed to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to furnish a declaration of his holding, or that of his family unit, under subsection (1) within such period as may be specified in the notice not being less than fifteen days from the date of its communication, and such person shall furnish the declaration accordingly. 13. Under sub-clause (3) of clause 8, if any person who is liable to furnish a declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) fails to furnish the declaration within the specified time, the Tribunal may obtain the necessary information in such manner as may be prescribed. 14. Under Section 24 of the Act, if any person, who is liable to furnish a declaration under this Act willfully and without reasonable cause or excuse, fails to furnish the declaration within the period prescribed is the punishable offense. 15. On enunciating the above provisions, the original declarant is Smt. Saripudi Alivalamma legatee Smt. Sai Kumari has not furnished the declaration what is contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. When the declarant has failed to furnish the declaration the Tribunal has to issue notice under sub-clause (2) of Section 8 to the declarant and if the declarant failed to furnish the declaration, liable to be punished under clause (1) of Section 24 of the Act. 16. Admittedly, in the present case the respondents herein have not issued any notice to Smt. Saripudi Alivalamma, or legatee Smt. Sai Kumari, who is the original declarant to submit the declaration of land as per Section 8 of the Act. In order to, ascertain whether the declarant has sold the extent of Ac.7.00 cents of land to the petitioner herein the respondents herein have not issued any notice whether such sale was made with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, under clause (1) of Section 7 of the Act. As the original declarant as well as legatee Smt. Sai Kumari are no more, the respondents herein cannot issue any notice or conduct any enquiry against the dead persons in order to ascertain that the transfer made by the deceased original declarant with a view or to avoiding the object of any law. As there is no timely action taken by the respondents herein any such transfer made by the original declarants or the legatee Smt. Sai Kumari shall be presumed not to be avoid or defeat the object of any law. 17. The Apex Court in Yeddia Cakradhararao v. State of A.P., 1990 (2) S.C.C. 523 , interpreting Section 3 explanation as held thus:- The Explanation in plain language states that the same land can be held by one person in one capacity and by another person in a different capacity and provides that such land shall be included in the holdings of both such persons. The Explanation thus clearly contemplates that the same land can be held as contemplated under sub-section (i) by one person as the owner and by another person as his lessee or as a person to whom the owner has delivered possession of the land in part performance of an agreement to sell. On a plain reading of the language used in the Explanation, we find it that it is not possible to accept the submission that only where the land is in possession of a person can that land be regarded as held by him. 18. The Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, 1981 (2) S.C.C. 1 , the relevant portion extract is as under:- It is now well settled that a person in possession pursuant to a contract for sale does not get title to the land unless there is a valid document of title in his favour. In the instant case it has already been pointed out that the transferee came into possession in pursuance of an agreement for sale but no valid deed of title was executed in his favour. Therefore, the ownership remained with the respondent-transferor. But even in the absence of a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is entitled to remain in possession. 19. Therefore, the ownership remained with the respondent-transferor. But even in the absence of a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is entitled to remain in possession. 19. The Supreme Court held that, even in the absence of valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is entitled to remain possession. In the present there is valid transfer and the petitioner came into possession by valid transfer. Hence, for the above said reason the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 20. For the above said reasons, the present Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the Adangal and Pahani within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.