STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusKORUKONDA SURYANARAYANA CHOWDHARY
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 577
- Decided
- 15 September 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The sale was not intended to defeat the Act and agreements of sale do not divest rights, so the lands must be included in the holdings of both purchaser and owner.
Summary
The State of Andhra Pradesh sued Korukondasuryanarayana Chowdhary alleging that lands he had sold were to be counted towards his agricultural‑holding ceiling under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Chowdhary submitted an affidavit stating that the sale dated 16 October 1971 was made under compelling necessity to discharge a loan from Andhra Bank. The appellate court examined whether the sale was intended to defeat the provisions of the Act and how lands covered by two other sale agreements should be treated for ceiling‑computation purposes. It held that the sale was not intended to evade the Act and that a sale agreement does not divest ownership rights, so the lands must be included in the holdings of both the purchaser and the original owner. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal in part, directing the appropriate computation of holdings and awarding no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the sale dated 16 October 1971 was intended to defeat the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973
- Whether lands covered under two other agreements of sale should be included in the holdings of the purchaser as well as the owner for the purpose of ceiling computation
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
KORUKONDASURYANARAYANACHOWDHARY
SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
B . [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,
1973:
C Sections 4 and 7-Agricultural Lands-Ceiling area-Computation of
Land sold under compelling necessity to discharge Bank loan-Held, sale not
intended to defeat provisions of the Act-Lands sold under other agreements
of sale to be included in the holdings of purchaser as well as of owner.
Certain lands sold by the tenure holder were included in his holdings
D for purpose of the Andhra ~radesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on land Hold-
ings) Act, 1973. The tenure holder filed an affidavit stating that the lands
under sale deed dated 16.10.1971 were sold under compelling necessity to
discharge the loan of the appellant Bank.
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court
E
HELD : 1.1. The sale dated October 16, 1971 was not intended to
defeat the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. (747-C]
1.2. The lands covered under two other agreements of sale shall be
F included in the holding of the purchaser as well as the owner as agreement
of sale does not divest the rights in the land. The computation shall be
made accordingly. [747-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8425 of
G 1995:
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.82 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. No. 935 of 1981.
K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam and T.V.S.N.
H Chari for the Appellant.
746
STATE v. K.S. CHOWDHARY 747
S. Markandeya, Ms. C. Markandeya and Ajay Singh for the Respon- A
dent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
B
With regard to the lands covered by the sale deed dated October 16,
1971, pursuant to our directions dated 14.8.1995, the respondent has filed
documents to establish that he was under compelling necessity to sell the
land to discharge the loans taken from the Andhra Bank since the Bank
was proceeding against his property for recovering dues payable to the
Bank. Therefore, we find that the sale dated October 16, 1971 was not C
intended to defeat the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. But with regard to the lands
covered by the two agreements of sale, in view of the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of. this Court and also an earlier judgment, the lands
covered under those agreements shall be included in the holding of the D
purchaser as well as the owner as agreement of sale does not divest the
rights in the land. The computation shall be made accordingly.
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.