Holding

Land held under an agreement to sell must be treated as part of the holdings of both vendor and vendee for the purposes of the ceiling under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975, and the Court may take suo motu notice under Article 142 to prevent injustice.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against orders that excluded about 900 acres of land, held under agreements to sell, from the ceiling provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975. The issue was whether such lands should be counted in the holdings of both the vendor and the vendee. Relying on earlier decisions (Yedida Chakradhararao v. State of A.P. and State of A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin), the Court held that land under an agreement to sell remains part of the holdings of both parties for the purpose of the ceiling. The Court also exercised suo motu jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to correct the apparent injustice. Consequently, the Court directed the Land Reforms Tribunal to reopen the relevant cases and determine surplus land, and allowed the appeals without costs.

Issues considered

Whether lands held under an agreement to sell are to be included in the holdings of the vendor and the vendee under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975.
Whether the Supreme Court can take suo motu judicial notice under Article 142 of the Constitution in such matters.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land reformsCeiling on agricultural holdingsAgreement to sellSuo motu jurisdictionArticle 142Excess landHolding inclusionSupreme CourtAndhra Pradesh

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A
v.
SHRI S. VISHWANATHA RAJU ETC. ETC.

JANUARY 20, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B
A.P. Land Refonns (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975:

Lands of Vendors and Vendees under agreement to sell-Whether liable
to be included in their holdings-Held: yes. C
Constitution of India, 195o-A.lt. 142-Suo motu judicial notice of
glaring injustice-Recourse to-Notices issued and treated as special leave
petitions-Orders of appellate authorities-Reviewed-A.P. Land Refonns
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975.
D
The question which arose in these appeals against the High Court
judgment, was whether the lands of Vendors and Vendees under agreement
to sell were liable to be included in their holdings.

On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the impugned
order was of the individual declaring partner and orders against the other E
partners could not be gone into for directing the inclusion of their land in
the sale transactions as the respective holdings of the partners of the
firms.

Allowing the appeals, this Court F
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that in appropriate cases, this Court is
prevented from taking suo motu judicial notice of glaring injustice having
recourse to Art.142 of the Constitution for serving the ends of justice. The
very purpose of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
Act, 1975, is to prescribe the maximum holding so that the excess land G
...~ becomes available for distribution among the landless persons so as to
serve the object of socio-economic justice envisaged in the Preamble to the
Constitution and its Directive Principles of State Policy. [531-G]

2. When a large extent of land of about 900 acres is sought to be H
529
\

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A taken out of the purview of the Act by the device of agreements ·of sale and
the officers overlook the same because of their negligence or otherwise in
_.....,.._
not carrying the orders of authorities in revision and when the facts came
to the notice, this court took suo motl.t notice of the cases -concerned,
treating them as special leave petitions against the orders passed by the
B appellate authority for considering its legality, by granting leave.
[531·H, 532·A·B] t
.II
3. The lands covered under Ex. A-1 and Ex.A-4 should be treated as
lands held by the vendor and the vendee. The Land Reforms Tribunal ..,
concerned is, directed to repen the CCs filed by the respective partners
c and the managing partners of the Comp~ny and determine the surplus
lands according to law and then pass appropriate orders according to law.
(532-C]
Yedida Chakradhararao (dead) through Lrs. etc. etc. v. State of A.P.,
[1990] 2 SCC 523 and State of A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, [1982] 2 SCC 1,.
D relied on.
-v.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2943-50
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.79 of the Andhra Pradesh
E High Court in C.R.P. NO. 3042, 3066, 3068, 3004, 3074, 3003, 3045 and 3046
of 1979.

K. Ram Kumar and Ms. Anjani Aiyagari for the Aprdlants.

F
Ms. K. Amareswari and G. Narasimhulu for the Respondents. .
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Heard counsel for the parties.

Delay of 3 years and 178 days is condoned.
.
·~
G
Substitution allowed, Leave granted.
-,,f .......

The only question that arises in these appeals is whether the lands
of vendors and the vendees under agreements to sell, Ex. A- 1 and Ex. A-4
H dated October 20, 1970 and December 9, 1970 to the extent of 456.56 acres
STATE OF AP .. v. S.V. RAJU 531

and 433.17 acres, respectively, are liable to be included in their holdings. A
This point is no longer res integra. This Court in Yedida Chakradhararao
(dead) through Lrs. etc. etc. v. State of A.P., (199l'l) 2 SCC 523, affirming the
judgment in State of A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, [1982) 2 SCC 1, held that
when the land was sought to be sold under an agreement to sell, the land
should be included in the holdings of the owner as well as the person who B
\
held the land. In other words, this Court has constured AP. Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1975 and held that the land should
be included in the holdings of the vendor as well as the vendee. Though
the agreement to sell does not confer title nor divest the title of the vendor,
the person who held the land should also furnish necessary declaration
under the Act when he is in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling C
area. In this view of the matter, the findings rec_orded by the primary
Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal whether the agreement to sell brought
about to defeat the provisions of the Act are genuine has become ir-
relevant. Consequently, the entire land covered by these two transactions
are to be included in the holdings of the vendors as well as the vendees. D
Ms. K. Amreshwari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents contended that when the firm had filed the declaration before
the primary authority in CC No. 2164175 and the Land Reforms Tribunal,
Kandukar by its order dated J an~ry 18, 1977 though did not accept the E
genuineness of the two transactions and included the same in the holdings
of the firm, on appeal by the Managing partner, the appellate authority had
held them to be genuine and directed exclusion thereof, again with specific
order. No. rl!vision was filed in the High Court and therefore there is no
S.L.P. The order thereby became final. The order impugned in this Court
is of the individual declaring partner and orders against the other partners F
cannot be gone into for directing the inclusion of their land in the sale
transactions as the respective holdings of the partners or the firms, as the
case may be. Technically, she is right. It cannot be said that in appropriate
cases, this Court is prevented to take suo motu judicial notice of glaring
injustice having recourse lo Art. 142 of the Constitution for serving the G
ends of justice. The very purpose of the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricul-
tural Holdings) Act, 1975, is to prescribe the maximum holding so that the
.. r
excess land becomes available for distribution among the landless persons
so as to serve the object of socio-economic justice envisaged in the
Preamble to the Constitution and its Directive Principles of State Policy.
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A When a large extent of land of about 900 acres is sought to be. taken out
of the purview of the Act by the device of agreements of sale and the
officers overlook the same because of their negligence or otherwise in not
carrying the orders of authorities in revision and when the facts came to
the notice, this court having taken suD mDtu notice of the same, meet out
B justice. According suD mDtu notice is taken of the cases concerned and
they are treated as special leave petitions against the order passed by the
appellate authority and considered its legality by granting leave. Hence, we
hold that the lands covered under Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-4 should be treated
as lands held by the vendor and the vendee. The Land Reforms Tribunal
concerned is, therefore, directed to reopen the CCs filed by the respective
C partners and the managing partners of the company and determine the
surplus lands according to law and then pass the appropriate orders
according to law.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. (A copy of this order
be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for taking
D immediate action in the matter).
G.N. Appeals allowed.