- (1.) Chalapathi Rao and his son Ananda Mohan, respondents in appeals herein, sold 220.25 acres of land by way of fourteen sale deeds executed on five different days (dates ) between December 16, 1971 and December 27, 1971. The question for consideration is whether the transfers are to be disregarded for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act). The Land Reforms Tribunal (the Tribunal) by its order dated April 14, 1977 answered the question in the affirmative and held that the transfers were made in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of the Act. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (the Appellate Tribunal), however, by its order dated December 17, 1977 reversed the findings of the Tribunal and held as under :- "Therefore, in these cases we hold that the declarant had given a reasonable explanation for the sale of the lands and there was no intention to avoid the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. Accordingly, we hold on point-1 that all the sales effected by the appellant, his wife and his son are true, genuine and supported by consideration and they were effected for the expansion of their industry and actually the amounts were invested for such expansion of the Sugar Factory and it cannot be said that they were intended to defeat or avoid the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. It follows that all the extents covered by all the sale deeds have to be excluded from the holding of the appellant's family unit, for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the appellants." Revision-petitions filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 21 of the Act were admitted by the High Court on July 6, 1978 on the limited question regarding "the treatment of the lands as single crop wet lands" and in respect of all other questions the revision petitions were dismissed. The High Court, therefore, upheld the above quoted findings of the Appellate Tribunal. These appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh are against the order of the Appellate Tribunal as upheld by the High Court.
(2.) Sections 7(1) and 21 of the Act, which are relevant, are reproduced hereunder :- "7. Special provision in respect of certain transfers, etc. already made :- Where on or after the 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him, 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, and where he has not so proved, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person." [May 2, 1972 is the notified date under the Act] 21. Revision:- An application for revision from any party aggrieved, including the Government, shall lie to the High Court, within the prescribed period, from any order passed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that it exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) that it failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c)that it acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
(3.) The Ordinance, which preceded the Act, came into force on May 2, 1972. Section 7(1) of the Act provides that any transfer of land made during the period from January 24, 1971 to May 2, 1972 which was made in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to reduction in the ceiling of agricultural holdings, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area under the Act. It further provides that onus to prove that the transfer was not with a view to avoiding or defeating any such law would be on the land-owner.;