Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gangi Pothuraju And Ors. vs Sri Merla Surya Prabhakar Rao And Anr. on 4 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(3)ALT987
Author: K.B. Siddappa
Bench: K.B. Siddappa
ORDER K.B. Saddappa, J.
1. This Revision is filed against the judgment passed in L.R. A. No. 73 /93 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
1st respondent is the declarant. He is found to have surplus land equivalent to 0.6761 Standard Holding. He proposed to surrender Ac.24.98 cents in S.No. 200/1 of Doddigunta village in addition to other land. After publication of Form VIII Notice the petitioners 1 to 4 filed petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming title over the land and requested the lower Tribunal to refuse to accept the surrender made by the declarant. The lower Tribunal negatived the claim of the third parties (Revision Petitioners). Aggrieved by the said order they filed Appeal. The Appeal also went against them.
3. Aggrieved by the said Judgment the present Revision is filed.
4. As stated earlier, 1st respondent is the declarant. He surrendered the land in S.No. 200/1 to an extent of Acs.24-98 cents, situated in Doddigunta village. The contention of the Revision petitioners is that the 1st respondent had sold this land in favour of one Gorthi Sathiraju under Ex.A-3 dated 10-3-1972 which is agreement of sale for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. On the date of the transaction, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given in advance. There is an endorsement of the 1st respondent marked as Ex.A-5 dated 26-4-1972 that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was received from Gorthi Sathiraju and physical possession of the land was also delivered to him. Mr. M. Surya Prakash Rao (sic.) (R-1) put his signature. It can be said mat sale under agreement Ex.A-3 dated 10-3-72 is a sham transaction made to defeat the purpose of the Act. There is no allegation to this effect. Mr. Gorthi Sathiraju also included this land in his declaration in L.C.C. No. 1930/PDP/75 because he is in possession of the land. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in its proceedings dated 15-6-1977 determined the excess land of Mr. Gorthi Sathiraju including this land purchased under agreement of sale. On appeal by Mr. Gorthi Sathiraju the Land Reforms (Appellate) Tribunal in L.R.A. No. 642/78 modified the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and allowed the Appeal partly by its order dated 23-4-1979. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the Authorised Officer against the order passed in L.R. A. No. 642/78 was dismissed by the High Court. Ultimately the surrender proposals made by Mr. Gorthi Sathiraju was accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal to an extent of 51 cents in S.No. 200/1 of Doddigunta village by proceedings dated 18-7-1980.
5. Subsequently, Mr. Gorthi Sathiraju and the 1st respondent, by a registered sale deed dated 11-4-1980 (Ex.C-6) sold an extent of Ac.4-47 cents in S. No. 200/1 out of the total extent of Ac.24-98 cents to one Valisa Satyam for a total consideration of Rs. 7168/- and was given possession to. Again the 1st respondent in the Revision and Gorthi Sathiraju jointly executed a registered sale deed dated 11-4-1980 (Ex.C-7) in favour of Vepakayala Radhakrishna Veeneswari, adopted daughter of Vepakayala Venkateswararao. The extent sold is Acs. 10.00 out of Acs.24.98 cents in S.No. 200/1 of Doddigunta village. Mr. Gorthi Sathiraju and the 1st respondent again sold an extent of Acs.10.00 in the same survey number for a total consideration of Rs. 16,000/- under Ex.C-8, dated 11-4-1980 in/favour of one Vepakayala Brahmajirao and Vepakayala Venkateswararao, s/o. Chander Rao. The possession was also delivered to the purchaser.
6. Valisa Satyam (purchaser under Ex.C-6) sold Ac.4-47 cents in S.No. 200/1 for a consideration of Rs. 35,800/ - to Gangi Veeraraju s/o Pothuraju of Kalavalagoyya of Rajahmundry Rural Mandal. The possession was also given to him on the same day. (Ex.C-1 dated 15-4-1987). The Revision Petitioner No. 1 purchased an extent of Acs.5.00 in S.No. 200/1 under Ex.C-2 dated 23-5-1987 for a total consideration of Rs. 40,000/- from Yelamarthi Radhakrishna Veeneswari wife of V. Satyanarayana. The possession was also taken by him. The Revision Petitioner No. 2 purchased an extent of Acs.5.00 out of the same survey number through Ex.C-3 dated 15-7-1987 from Yelamarthi Radhakrishna Veeneswari for a total consideration of Rs. 40,000/-, and possession was also taken.
7. Revision Petitioner No. 3 purchased an extent of Acs.5.00 in S.No. 200/1 under Ex.C-4 dated 20-6-1987 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- from Velemarthi Brahmaji Rao s/o Chandra Rao. The possession was also taken. Revision Petitioner No. 4 purchased an extent of Acs. 5.00 out of S.No. 200/1 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- under Ex.C-5 dated 23-5-1987 from Vepakayala Venkateswara Rao s/o. Chandra Rao. Thus, the petitioners are in possession of the lands undisputedly even till today.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision petitioners submitted that the Land Reforms Tribunal determined 1.1316 Standard Holding as excess in respect of L.C.C. No. 994/RMM/75 belonging to the 1st respondent herein. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal directed the Land Reforms Tribunal by proceedings dated 8-1-1979 to conduct enquiry With regard to the genuineness of the three agreements of sale referred to in the declaration. After remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed order dated 23-1-1990 determining the Standard Holding of the 1st respondent as 0.6761 in excess. As a matter of fact, the 1st respondent herein proposed surrender of other lands including S.No. 200/1 which is Acs.24-98 cents in extent, of Doddigunta village. On objection, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms) wrote a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rangampeta to send a report, by his proceedings dated 9-4-1990. In the meanwhile, the Land Reforms Appeal filed by the 1st respondent was dismissed on 23-1-1990. It is observed that if the declarant proposed to surrender the lands covered by agreement of sale and if the lands were already included in the holding of the vendee, the vendee may make representation before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal regarding the exclusion of the lands surrendered. The Mandal Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 28-7-1990. He stated that the land to an extent of Acs.24-47 cents in S.No. 200/1 of Doddigunta village is in possession of Gani Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and four others (Revision Petitioners), of Rajahmundry town. It is clearly mentioned that the said land is not in possession of the declarant since 10 years. The Village Administrative Officer's report was also enclosed. The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms)/ in his proceedings dated 16-8-1990 gave notice to the 1st respondent (declarant) stating: "You are proposed to surrender an extent of Acs. 24-98 cents covered by S.No. 200/1 of Doddigunta. It was informed by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the said land an extent of 51 cents was assisgned to one Pyditali Tatayya in 1980. In the remaining extent Sri Vepakayala Brahmaji and Ors. purchased the lands. Hence you have to surrender alternative lands instead of said proposed lands within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice or else the Tribunal will select the other alternative lands". The said notice was served on 21-8-1990 on the 1st respondent. The declarant- 1st respondent submitted his reply dated 24-8-1990 praying for reopening. However, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, issued notice to the Mandal Revenue Officer to publish Form No. VIII notice wherein he accepted surrender of land in S.No. 200/1. The petitioners filed objections and subsequently their appeal etc., was also dismissed.
9. In the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms) declined to accept the lands in S.No. 24/1 as they are in possession of third parties in his proceedings dated 16-8-1990. It is not known why again this was accepted and a direction was given to the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue Form No. VIII.
10. He further submitted that admittedly the Revision Petitioners are in possession now. The title of the land is in cloud inasmuch as the agreement of sale in favour of Gangi Veeraraju is still subsisting. At any time he can file a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It cannot be said that Ex.A-3 cannot be enforced now. The object of the Act is to give clear title to the beneficiaries. They are not to be dragged to Courts due to defective titles etc. Section 10(5) clearly envisaged this point etc.
11. In support of his contention he relied upon the Bench Judgment of this Court in K.S. Vijaya Gopala Raju v. The Authorised Officer (L.R.), Visakhapatnam, 1988 (1) ALT 49 (D.B.) (NRC). In this case, the Bench held:-
"Under Section 10(5) it is not obligatory on the part of the Tribunals to accept every land that is surrendered, even though it is computed to his holding and it is open to them to refuse to accept the land in the possession of third parties, though it can be computed in his holding under the other provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The word "encumbrance" used in Section 10(5) takes in a lease or tenancy. When the land vests in the Government and purpose of the Act is to distribute for house-sites and other purposes, that purpose gets frustrated if any other further steps are needed for evicting the occupants. It is precisely for this reason, the authorities are vested with the discretion to accept or reject. The other expressions in Section 10(5) namely, that surrender can be refused if there is a dispute as to title and in the possession of a mortgage or a person in part performance of contract, clearly indicates the intention of the Legislature that the land must be available for distribution to the needy."
12. He also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in P. Ramaswamy v. Spl. Tahsildar, Hyderabad, 1980 (1) APLJ 48 (SN). In this case this Court held:-
"The lands in possession of a person other than the declarant who is the surplus holder could not be accepted by way of surrender When in fact these lands could not be computed in the holding of the owner they could never be surrendered by him and such surrender could not be accepted. Even when the Tribunal selects the lands of this nature for the purpose of enforcing surrender of land by the declarant the Tribunal cannot select such lands which are in possession of the third parties. This is prohibited by Section 10(5) of the Act."
13. In another case in Meer Ameerullah Khan and Anr. v. Vaman Rao and Ors., 1990 (2) An.W.R. 32, this Court held (hat when the declarant himself has created a cloud on the title so far as the land covered by the agreement is concerned, he cannot again be permitted to say that the lands on which cloud has been found on the title have to be taken only and not the other lands into consideration and that when a cloud has been created with regard to title of the land the government was perfectly justified in not accepting the land covered by the agreement of sale for surrender and that the declarant has to surrender the land where there is a clear title without any cloud on the title and that when the land with clear title and without any cloud on the title has been surrendered the authorities have no right to reject the same etc.
14. On the other hand the learned Counsel Mr. M.S.K. Sastri, appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that Civil Revision Petition is not filed by Gorthi Sathiraju who is the agreement holder. The petitioners (objectors) purchased these lands in the year 1987. Therefore the transactions are hit by Section 17 of the Act. After remand, the Primary Tribunal gave notice and when the parties did not appear it was held that the agreement was created. According to him, this aspect was elaborately considered in the impugned judgment He further submitted that if the agreement was valid it is not known why the 1st respondent was required to join Gorthi Sathiraju when sales were effected under Exs.C-6, C-7 and C-8. That itself shows that the title has not passed to Sathiraju and he has no right. In his submission, the Revision Petitioners have no locus-standi to object.
15. The learned Government Pleader for Land Ceilings adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
16. I am unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents. The record is produced before me. I perused the record. The agreement of sale, Ex.A-3, is found on record at page 161. The endorsement Ex.A-5 is at page 163. In this it is clearly mentioned that physical possession of the land was given to Sathiraju. Therefore, Sathiraju can certainly defend his right, by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. As a matter of fact, Sathiraju also included this land in L.C.C. 1930/PDP/75 and this was computed in his holding and he surrendered the excess of 51 cents on 18-7-1980. It is true that the 1st respondent also joined in sales in Exs.C-6 to C-8. This might be because no clear title had passed under agreement of sale to Gorthi Sathiraju. That does not mean that Gorthi Sathiraju has no right at all in the land. The sales pertaining to the Revision Petitioners are of the year 1987. Those sales cannot be held bad because the right of the original vendor Gorthi Sathiraju cannot be doubted. The proceedings L.C.C. 1930/PDP/75 ended on 18-7-1980. Gorthi Sathiraju and the 1st respondent sold together subsequent to that date. Therefore, the subsequent sale cannot be bad. Further, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 28-7-1990 at page 339 clearly shows that Venkatasatyanarayana and four others are in possession of the land for the last 10 years. In pursuance of the report, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer declined to take this land and directed the declarant to propose other lands within 7days (proceedings dated 16-8-1990 at page 349). When reply was given by the declarant (1st respondent), no final order was passed as to why again the authorities deem it fit to take possession of S.No. 200/1 which was earlier rejected. The conduct of the authorities is questionable. Again, the declarant- 1st respondent having sold under agreement of sale, having received the entire amount and having delivered physical possession to Gorthi Sathiraju, now cannot surrender the same land towards his excess holding.
17. Whatever it is, the title of the land in S.No. 200/1 of Doddigunta village is under cloud. The object of the Act is dearly spelt out by the Bench of this Court, cited (1) supra and it is clearly held by the authorities referred to above that the land, the title of which is in cloud, cannot be accepted for surrender.
18. Therefore, I set-aside the judgment under Revision and allow the Civil Revision Petition and in the circumstances without costs.