SURENDER & ORS.versusGADDA BALAIAH & ORS.

               [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 803


                    SURENDER & ORS.                               A
                              v.
                 GADDA BALAIAH & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 3054 of 2006)
                    DECEMBER 7, 2010
                                                                  8
          [V.S. SIRPURKAR T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

    Land Laws and Agricultura(Tenancy:
      Dispute as regards occupancy right of protected tenants     C
- Order of single Judge of High Court passed in revision
petitions challenged before Supreme Court - HELD: Order
of single Judge of High Court set aside - Matter remitted to
High Court for decision on the questions formulated by
Supreme Gourt with the consensus of the parties - Though
the revision petitions were decided by single Judge of the        D
High Court, keeping in view the importance of the i$!5ues and
the far reaching implications the same have for .the parties,
the revision petitions should be heard by a Division Bench
to be constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court -
Practice and Procedure.                                           E
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3054 of 2006.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 07.10.2005 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition   F
No. 6708 of 2003.
                              WITH
C.A. Nos. 4111, 4105 of 2006, 2578, 10330, 10331, 10332,
10334, 10333 of 2010, Con mt. Pet. (C) No. 335 of 2009 in C.A.    G
No. 2578 of 2010, C.A. Nos. 10335, 10336-10337, 10338,
10339 & 10340 of 2010.
    I. Venkatanarayana, P.P. Rao, Vishwanatha Shetty, A.
Rajan, A. Ramesh, P. Promila, Madhavi, Neelam Jain, C.K.
                         803                                      H
    804     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Sucharita, Nirada Das, Promila, Hanumantha Rao, S. Udaya
  Kumar Sagar, Bina Madavan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Sridhar
  Potaraju, D. Julius Riamei, Gaichang, A. Ramesh, Madhvi,
  A.D.N. Rao, Chava Sadri Nath Babu, C. Durga Prasad, Nalini
  Mishra, R.P. Goyal, T.N. Rao, S. Thananjayan, G. Ramakrishna
B Prasad, 8. Suyodhan, Bharat J. Joshi, Tatini Basu, D. Rama
  Krishna Reddy, T. Anamika, D. Bharati Reddy, Rameshwar
  Prasad Goyal, John Mathew, Guntur Prabhakar, T.V. George,
  Sridhar, Potaraju, G.V.R. Chdudhary, K. Shivraj Choudhari, A.
  Chandra Shekhar, P. Venkat Reddy, 8. Rama Reddy, Anil
C Kumar Tandale for the appearing parties.
          The following Order of the Court was delivered
                                 ORDER
          1. Leave granted.
D
        2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 7th
  October, 2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of
  Andhra Pradesh dismissing Civil Revision Petition No.1200/
  2003 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh while allowing Civil
  Revision Petition No.6708 of 2003 filed by the respondents,
E Gadda Balaiah & Ors. The High Court has in the process set
  aside order dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the Joint
  Collector, Ranga Reddy District and restored that dated 28th
  April, 2001 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (''RDO"
  for short), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District.
F
        3. The facts giving rise to the revision petitions filed before
  the High Court have been set out in the order passed by the
  High Court and those passed by the RDO and the Joint
  Collector, District, Ranga Reddy. It is, therefore, unnecessary
  for us to repeat the same over and again especially because
G there are numerous areas in which the factual assertions made
  by one party are stoutly disputed by the other. The need for a
  full fledged factual narration is rendered unnecessary also
  because learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to the
  impugned order being set aside and the matter being remitted
H
  SURENDER & ORS. v. GADDA BALAIAH & ORS.                   805


back to the High Court for a fresh hearing and disposal in          A
accordance with law. The fact that such an agreement emerged
only after the matter had been argued at considerable length
underscores the significance of the issues that need to be
addressed for a proper disposal of the controversy but have
not been so addressed by the High Court in the order                B
impugned.
      4. Learryed counsel for the parties submitted that lest the
matters that need to be kept in focus are neglected at the
hearing before the High Court it would be proper if specific
questions that arise for consideration are formulated to enable     C
the parties to make their submission on each one of those
questions and also to enable the High Court to answer the same
while disposing of the matter afresh. We had, with that object
in view, adjourned the matter to enable the parties to formulate
the questions that according to them fall for determination by      D·
the High Court. In response several questions have been
suggested to us on either side totalling about 40 questions in
all. Some of these questions are substantial while some are in
the nature of arguments that could be addressed before the
High Court. Be that as it may learned counsel for the parties       E
agreed that broadly speaking the following questions arise for
determination by the High Court:
      1.    Whether the respondents or their predecessors
            were, at any stage, recorded as protected tenants
            in respect of land measuring 190 acres 17 guntas        F
            situate in survey Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42-47, 50-53
            of Gachibowli Village, Seralingamapalli Mandal,
            Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad or any portion
            thereof.?
                                                                    G
      2.    Whether the findings recorded by the RDO in his
            enquiry report dated 27.7.1981 in respect of (a) the
            status of respondents as protected tenants u/s 37-
            A and (b) absence of proof of surrender in
            accordance with Section 19 of the Act, were
                                                                    H
    806   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A              challenged by Kastopa Corporation. If not whether
               the said findings can be challenged by the
               successors in interest of Kastopa Corporation?
          3.   In case, questions No.1 and 2 above, are answered
               in the affirmative, whether the respondents or their
B              predecessors had validly surrendered their tenancy
               rights in accordance with the procedure prescribed
               by law. If so, in which proceedings and qua which
               survey numbers, was the surrender made?

c         4.   Whether the sale of plots from the year 1986
               onwards by Mis. Kastopa Corporation and the
               protected tenants in favour of the appellants and the
               petitioners in the concerned SLPs are valid having
               regard inter-alia to the provisions of the Tenancy
               Act?
D
          5.   Whether the lands covered by protected tenancy
               rights were liable to be excluded from the holding
               of Kastopa Corporation under the Ceiling Act and,
               if they had not been excluded initially, whether the
E              authorities under the Ceiling Act could exclude
               them subsequently at the instance of the protected
               tenants or the land holder?
          6.   Whether there was conversion of the land use for
               house sites and non-agricultural purposes in
F              respect of the lands in question in accordance with
               law and if so, what is the effect of such conversion
               on the rights of the parties and from which date
               would the conversion be effective?
          7.   Whether surplus land to an extent of Ac 137 .17
G
               guntas in Survey Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42 to 47 and
               53 of Gachibowli Village had vested in the
               government under Section 11 of the Andhra
               Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
               holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
H
 SURENDER & ORS. v. GADDA BALAIAH & ORS.                    807

            'Land Reforms Act'). If so whether, any transaction     A
            by way of sale-deeds or otherwise by the- d
            'protected tenants' and the 'pattadars' are void ab
            initio?
     8.     Whether the ceiling proceedings had attained
            finality with the dismissal of the Civil Revision 8
            Petition (SR) No.24698 of 1976 by a learned Single
            Judge of the High Court vide Order dated
            28.4.1976. If so whether the same could not be
            reopened in Writ proceedings and in the absence ·
            of necessary parties or in collateral proceedings C
            like Civil Revision Petition No. 3577 of 1997?
     9.     Having obtained a consent order dated 20.9.1999
            (Justice A.S. Bhate's order) in Writ Petition No.
            14708 of 1999 for grant of rights under Section
                                                                    0
            38(a) in respect of land in survey numbers 46, 47
            and 53 (Paiki) to the extent of 37 acres, whether
            the respondents could mutually agree for issue of
            38-A sale Certificates qua land in survey numbers
            51, 52 and part 53 sold to the Petitioners herein for   E
            valuable consideration?
      10.   Whether the respondents are entitled to certificates
            under Section 38-A over Survey Nos. 51, 52 & 53?
      5. We make it clear that the formulation of the above
questions is by no means exhaustive and that the High Court         F
would be free to either reframe any of the above questions or
to frame any further questions that in its opinion arise for its
consideration. Needless to say that the parties shall also be
free to suggest before the High Court formulation of any further
question is relevant and necessary for an effective and final       G
adjudication of the matters in disp_ute.
     6. The revision petitions in question were heard by a Single
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel
for the parties submitted and in our opinion rightly so that        H
    808    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   keeping in view the importance of the issues and the far-
    reaching implications the same have for the parties it would be
    appropriate if the revision petitions are placed before a Division
    Bench constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court
    of Andhra Pradesh for hearing.
B      7. Our attention was also drawn by learned counsel for the
  parties to some applications that have been filed in these
  proceedings for addition of the applicants as parties. Since the
  matter is being remitted back to the High Court, we do not
  consider it necessary to pass any order on the said applications
C except that the applicants shall be free to approach the High
  Court in this regard in which event the High Court may examine
  the prayer made by the applicants request in accordance with
  law.
D      8. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the
  impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court
  for being heard by a Division Bench of that Court in accordance
  with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to
  appear before the High Court on 10th January 2011. This would
  obviate the necessity of issuing notices to the parties and
E consequent delay in the disposal of the matter. Since the
  matters are fairly old we request the High Court to expedite the
  hearing of the revisions and as far as possible dispose of the
  same by the 30th June, 2011.
F       9. Pending fresh disposal of the revision petitions by the
    High Court the interim orders passed by this Court on 20th
    February, 2006 and 22nd September, 2006 directing
    maintenance of status quo shall continue to remain operative.
    No costs.
G        10. In the light of what we have directed above, we do not
    see any reason to proceed further with Contempt Petition
    No.335 of 2009 in CA No.2578 of 2010 which is hereby
    disposed of and the rule discharged.

H R.P.       Appeals allowed and contempt petition disposed of.