- (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short the 'act' ). Challenge in the Civil Revision is to the Order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar (in short the 'appellate Tribunal' ).
(2.) BACKGROUND facts in nutshell are as follows:one Maqbool Alam surrendered 11 acres and 07 guntas of land in Nanvath village (survey No. 4/b) in lieu of excess land of the declarant. The respondent No. 1 contended that said Maqbool Alam had transferred ownership of the land under an agreement of sale dated 19. 1. 1971 and since then he was in continuous possession of the land by paying land revenue and without considering the relevant materials the Land Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad, had accepted the surrender of the land even ignoring the objection filed by the applicant dated 26. 9. 1978. Reference was made to Section 10 (5) (a) (ii) to substitute the stand. It is not be noted that the Land Reforms Tribunal proceeded on the basis as if no objection was filed by anybody. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that in view of what is stated in Section 10 (5) (a) (ii) and in view of the fact that the appellant was in possession since 1971, the surrender to the extent of 11 acres and 07 guntas of land is set aside and rest of the order was upheld. The Land Reforms Tribunal was directed to receive the recovery proceedings against Maqbool Alam for the balance area as per law. There was no challenge to the order by Maqbool Alam but the State of Andhra Pradesh, the present appellant filed a Revision as noted above. The High Court found that respondent No. 1 was in possession of the land before the notified date and possession of the the land was with him on the notified ate and, therefore, the finding of the Land Reforms Tribunal could not be sustained. Therefore, it was held that the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of what has been stated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Yedida Chakradhararao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1990 (2) SCC 523] the view of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court cannot be maintained.
(3.) STAND of the respondent was that since effect of Section 10 (5) (a) (ii) was not considered, the Appellate Tribunal directed exclusion of the land in possession of respondent No. 1 and there is nothing wrong in such direction. It was, therefore, submitted that the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application. The learned counsel for the appellant, in reply, had submitted that the land purportedly transferred on the basis of unregistered agreement with no validity in law. Section 10 (5) (a) (ii) reads as follows: "section 10 (5) (a) Notwithstanding anything in the Section, it shall be open to the Tribunal to refuse or to accept the surrender of any land (ii) the surrender of which is not acceptable on account of a dispute as to the title to the land or an encumbrance on the land or on account of the land being in the possession of any person mentioned in 1[x x x] item (v) of Clause (i) of Section 3 or on account of the land proposed to be surrendered becoming inaccessible by reason of its severance from the remaining part of the holding; and the Tribunal shall, in every such case, serve a notice on the person concerned requiring him to surrender any other land in lieu thereof; and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (3) and (4) shall, mutatis mutandis apply to such surrender :" "the provision comes into operation when a land holder refuses to accept the surrender of any land. Clause (i) shows that notwithstanding anything contained in the section it shall be open to the tribunal to refuse to accept the surrender of any land. Clause (2) provides that it is permissible to the tribunal not to accept any surrender if there is a dispute as to the title or on account of land being in possession of any person mentioned in item (4) of clause (i) of Section 3 or on account of land proposed to be surrendered becoming inaccessible by reason of its severance from the remaining part of the holding. " ;