NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4658 OF 2008
Bikkina Rama Rao & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Tribal Welfare)
Kota Ramachandrapuram & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
1
Appeal No.675 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal filed by
the appellants herein.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.
3. The dispute relates to the land measuring around
60 acres comprised in survey Nos.462 and 472
situated at Ganaparavaram village of Buttaigudem
Mandal, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to
as “the suit land”). This dispute is governed by the
provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land
Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1
of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation”).
4. The claim of the appellants is that they have
purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds
dated 29.01.1977 executed by several vendors.
However, the State (Special Deputy Collector Tribal
welfare, Kota Ramachandra Puram, West Godavari),
2
questioned the bona fides of the transactions in
question and accordingly issued the notices to the
appellants alleging therein that since these sale deeds
were found executed in contravention of Section 3 (1)
(a) of the Regulation by the Vendors and the Vendees
(appellants) and, therefore, they were null and void.
5. It is this issue which was probed by the Revenue
Authorities by holding an inquiry under the Regulation
such as in the first instance, by the Special Deputy
Collector by order dated 24.04.1984, thereafter by the
Agent to Govt. (as an Appellate Authority) by order
dated 27.10.2001 followed by the State (as a
Revisionary Authority) by order dated 16.07.2007 and
by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction by order
dated 02.08.2007 and thereafter in its intra court
appellate jurisdiction by the impugned order.
6. Though the appellants contested the issue on
facts and in law but it was consequently decided
3
against the appellants by all the Authorities and the
Courts, wherein it was held that the sale deeds in
question were executed in contravention of the
provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and,
therefore, they are declared null and void.
7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the
High Court and have filed the present appeal by way of
special leave in this Court.
8. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the Authorities
and the Courts were justified in holding that the sale
deeds in question are null and void because they were
executed in contravention of the provisions of the
Regulation.
9. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for
the appellants and Mr. B. Adinaryana Rao, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
4
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside
the impugned order as also the order dated
02.08.2007 passed by the Single Judge, remand the
case to the Single Judge (writ court) for deciding the
appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits in accordance
with law.
11. The need to remand the case to the High Court
(writ court) has arisen for two reasons.
12. First, the High Court did not examine the case in
the context of the definition of the expression
“Transfer” as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation;
and Second, certain documents filed by the appellants
to prove the transactions in question as being legal
and not hit by Section 3 of the Regulation as amended
with effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered.
5
13. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned
two grounds was also necessary while deciding the
legality and validity of the sale deeds in question along
with all other issues decided by the Courts below.
14. It is for this reason, we feel that it would be in the
interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the
High Court (Single Judgewrit court) for deciding the
appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits in accordance
with law on all the issues arising in the case including
those mentioned above. The subsequent allottees of
the land in question, who made an application seeking
their impleadment in the appeal (I.A. No.2/2008) is
allowed. They are allowed to become parties in the writ
petition. They will also be heard.
15. We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits having formed an
opinion to remand the case though learned counsel for
the parties argued several issues arising in the case.
6
Indeed, we refrained ourselves from going into the
issues urged.
16. The High Court (Single Judgewrit court) will,
therefore, decide the writ petition on merits strictly in
accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations
made by this Court, on the issues arising in the case.
17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order is set aside.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
May 03, 2019
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4658 OF 2008
Bikkina Rama Rao & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Tribal Welfare)
Kota Ramachandrapuram & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
1
Appeal No.675 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal filed by
the appellants herein.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.
3. The dispute relates to the land measuring around
60 acres comprised in survey Nos.462 and 472
situated at Ganaparavaram village of Buttaigudem
Mandal, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to
as “the suit land”). This dispute is governed by the
provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land
Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1
of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation”).
4. The claim of the appellants is that they have
purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds
dated 29.01.1977 executed by several vendors.
However, the State (Special Deputy Collector Tribal
welfare, Kota Ramachandra Puram, West Godavari),
2
questioned the bona fides of the transactions in
question and accordingly issued the notices to the
appellants alleging therein that since these sale deeds
were found executed in contravention of Section 3 (1)
(a) of the Regulation by the Vendors and the Vendees
(appellants) and, therefore, they were null and void.
5. It is this issue which was probed by the Revenue
Authorities by holding an inquiry under the Regulation
such as in the first instance, by the Special Deputy
Collector by order dated 24.04.1984, thereafter by the
Agent to Govt. (as an Appellate Authority) by order
dated 27.10.2001 followed by the State (as a
Revisionary Authority) by order dated 16.07.2007 and
by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction by order
dated 02.08.2007 and thereafter in its intra court
appellate jurisdiction by the impugned order.
6. Though the appellants contested the issue on
facts and in law but it was consequently decided
3
against the appellants by all the Authorities and the
Courts, wherein it was held that the sale deeds in
question were executed in contravention of the
provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and,
therefore, they are declared null and void.
7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the
High Court and have filed the present appeal by way of
special leave in this Court.
8. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the Authorities
and the Courts were justified in holding that the sale
deeds in question are null and void because they were
executed in contravention of the provisions of the
Regulation.
9. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for
the appellants and Mr. B. Adinaryana Rao, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
4
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside
the impugned order as also the order dated
02.08.2007 passed by the Single Judge, remand the
case to the Single Judge (writ court) for deciding the
appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits in accordance
with law.
11. The need to remand the case to the High Court
(writ court) has arisen for two reasons.
12. First, the High Court did not examine the case in
the context of the definition of the expression
“Transfer” as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation;
and Second, certain documents filed by the appellants
to prove the transactions in question as being legal
and not hit by Section 3 of the Regulation as amended
with effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered.
5
13. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned
two grounds was also necessary while deciding the
legality and validity of the sale deeds in question along
with all other issues decided by the Courts below.
14. It is for this reason, we feel that it would be in the
interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the
High Court (Single Judgewrit court) for deciding the
appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits in accordance
with law on all the issues arising in the case including
those mentioned above. The subsequent allottees of
the land in question, who made an application seeking
their impleadment in the appeal (I.A. No.2/2008) is
allowed. They are allowed to become parties in the writ
petition. They will also be heard.
15. We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits having formed an
opinion to remand the case though learned counsel for
the parties argued several issues arising in the case.
6
Indeed, we refrained ourselves from going into the
issues urged.
16. The High Court (Single Judgewrit court) will,
therefore, decide the writ petition on merits strictly in
accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations
made by this Court, on the issues arising in the case.
17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order is set aside.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
May 03, 2019
7
