Alladi Kuppuswami, J.:— These two revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (referred to in this judgment as the Act.) Asa common question of law arises in these two revision petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is admitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the facts in the two cases are almost identical and the decision in one will govern the other. It is therefore sufficient if we deal with C.R.P No. 1313/76.

2. The respondent filed a declaration under section 8(1) of the Act. in annexure III to the declaration, he gave particulars of Ac. 5-09 cents of wet land and Ac. 50-02A cents of dry land which he had sold on different occasions between 24-1-1971 and 27-3-1972. Under Section 7 of the Act, it is provided as follows:

“(i) Where on or after the 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of sale, gift usufructuary mortgage exchange, settlement, surrender, or in any other manner what soever any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him, then the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on such person, and where he has not so proved, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person.”

Under sub-section (7)(a)—

“If any question arises—Whether any transfer or creation of a trust effected on or after the 24th January, 197 had been effected in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of, any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, such question shall be determined by the Tribunal, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties, and its decision there on shall, subject to an appeal and a revision under this Act, be final.”

In the light of this Section, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore considered whether the extent of land which had been alienated betwe 24-1-71 and 27-3-72 should be included in the holding of the declarant for the purpose of ascertaining the land which he is entitled to retain under the Act and the excess which he has to surrender. The declarant contended that these alienations were not made with a view to avoid or defeat the law relating to ceiling on agricultural holding but were effected by him in the ordinary course. He submitted that he and his brother (Petitioner in CRP. 1366/76) wanted to start a distillery and had applied for grant of a licence. They required considerable funds for that purpose. They therefore started selling the lands and effected the various sales over an interval of nearly one and half years i.e between October 1971 and March, 1972, In this connection, in view of certain objections raised by a third party, one Vemareddi Sesha drireddi, a special enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal in addition to the routine report obtained from the Tahsildar. The Karnam was also examined. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that all the sales were genuine transactions and the lands comprised therein cannot be taken into account in computing the holding of the declarant and fixing the ceiling.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Special Tahsildar, Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Nellore preferred an appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nellore. The Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal observed that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the lower Tribunal and the conclusions were correct. After considering the evidence in the case, the Chairman held that declaran has discharged the burden cast on him under section 7(1) of the Act of proving that the transfers were not made with a view to avoid or defeat the object of the ceiling laws. The second Member, however, came to a different conclusion and held that the declarant had not proved that the transfers were no effected in anticipation and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to the reduction in ceiling. As the Chairman had agreed with the decision of the lower Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed.

4. The State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred these revision petitions against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader contended that all the transfers were effected with an intention to escape from the purview of the Act.

5. From a perusal of Sec. 7(1) of the Act which has been extracted above, it is clear that in the case of alienations effected between 24th January, 1971 and the date of notification, the burden is upon the declarant to satisfy the Tribunal that they were not effected in anticipation or with a view to avoid or defeat the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings. There is in other words an initial presumption that such alienations were made with a view to avoid or defeat the provisions of the Act. But the Section itself contemplates that such a presumption is rebutable and the burden is placed on the declarant to rebut that presumption, it is open to the declarant by satisfactory evidence to prove that such alienations were made not with a view to avoid or defeat the provisions of the ceiling law, but in the ordinary course. For example, a declarant may, by cogent evidence satisfy the Tribunal that the alienations were effected by the declarant for discharging a debt, or for performing the marriages of his children, or those dependant on him, or for incurring urgent medical expenses etc. These examples are not exhaustive and are intended only to serve as illustrations to show that the mere fact that the alienations were made after 24-1-71 does not necessarily mean they were made with intent to defeat or avoid the provisions of the Act but may have been made in the usual course. In this case, the declarant submitted that the sales were made with a view to raise funds for the distillery which he proposed to start. In order to substantiate his ease, he gave oral evidence and produced Exs. A-1 and A-2. Ex. A-1 is a communication addressed by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, to the declarant on 13-9-1974. This refers to two letters of the declarant one of which is dt. 3-9-71 and also refers to the communication from the Board of Revenue (Excise) dated 4-1-1972 and from the Director of Industries, dated 15-9-1271. This letter shows that the petitioner had submitted a scheme in his letter dated 3-9-71 for the construction and working of a distillery for the manufacture of liquors and steps were being taken for persuading the authorities concerned to permit the declarant and his brother to establish and construct a distillery. It is therefore not improbable that they required funds for that purpose and started selling the land. The alienations are not in favour of near relations, of the declarant nor are the alienees persons beholden to the declarant like his labourers or farm servants in which case there may be some doubt cast on the bonafides of the transactions and it might have been permissible to urge that they were benami or sham and nominal transactions. On the other band full consideration was paid and the purchasers were given possession of the land. After considering the evidence both the Tribunals held that the sales were genuine and the declarant had discharged the burden placed on him under Section 7. It is not permissible for this Court to interfere with such a conclusion as it cannot be said that any question of jurisdiction is involved. In Official Receiver v. Abdul Shakoor (1) AIR 1965 S.C 920 where a creditor made a claim based on a promissory note and the District Judge considering the evidence produced, inferred from the facts found that the statutory presumption under Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act relating to consideration was discharged, it was held that it was not open to the High Court in exercising jurisdiction under Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the judgment of the Court as the question whether the statutory presumption is rebutted in a particular case is a question of fact.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the appellate tribunal had referred to and relied strongly upon the decisions of the Madras High Court in Naganatha Ayyar v. Authorised Officer (2) 1971 (I) M.L.J 274, and of the Bombay High Court in Keshao v. State (3), A.I.R 1976 Bombay 78. He argued that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 27 of 1961, are not in pari materia with the Andhra Pradesh Act and the appellate tribunal was therefore wrong in relying on these decisions. In Naganatha Ayyar v. Authorised Officer (2) 1971 (1) M.L.J 274, the Court had to consider sections 19 to 22 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. Section 22 of the Act authorises an authorised officer to declare particular alienations to be void, if it defeated the provisions of the Act. It was held that section 22 does not invalidate a transaction either expressly or by necessary implication, nor is there any presumption of its invalidity on the ground that it had the effect of defeating the provisions of the Act. It merely enables the Authorised Officer to declare it void as defeating the provisions of the Act and that suggests that the Authorised officer has to find out as to what is the intention behind the transfer. If he finds that the transfer has been entered into bona fide, the transfer cannot be declared void. If, on the other hand, he finds that the transaction was intended to defeat the provisions of the Act, without the parties not bona fide intending to transfer title, the Authorised officer has to declare it as of no effect. In other words, sec. 22 covers only sham, nominal and bogus transfers, which are-only intended to defeat the provisions of the Act.

7. In Keshao v. State (3) A.I.R 1976 Bombay 78, it was held that the effect of section 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Act was that the transfers between 4-8-59 and January 26, 1962, are deemed to have been made in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the Ceiling Act unless the contrary is proved. Section 10 only raises a statutory presumption and it may be possible in given cases to lead evidence to show that the transfers were not in anticipation of or to avoid or defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act. But, the burden to establish it clearly lies on the holder. Whether the holder has satisfactorily established or not is a question of fact.

8. The learned Government Pleader is justified in contending that so far as the Tamil Nadu Act is concerned, there is no presumption that the alienations were made with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act. But though the tribunal his referred to this decision, it has not on that account laid the burden of proof wrongly upon the State to prove that alienations were made with a view to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Law. The appellate tribunal has rightly placed the burden upon the declarant and even placing the burden on the declarant, it has come to the conclusion that the burden has been discharged. There might have been some force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader if relying upon the Madras decision the appellate tribunal laid the burden wrongly on the State even under the Andhra Pradesh Act also. But it has not done so. In that case it would have been possible to urge that the judgment of the Tribunal was vitiated by placing the burden wrongly upon the State when section 7 categorically states that the burden is upon the declarant. But in this case the appellate tribunal has rightly placed the burden of proof on the declarant.

9. In so far as the Bombay decision is concerned, it is directly in point as under the Maharashtra Act also the burden of proof is upon the declarant.

10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that there is no case made out for interference in revision with the judgment of the appellate tribunal which has held after considering the evidence that the burden laid upon the declarant under section 7 of the Act was discharged in the case. The C.R.P No. 1313/76 is dismissed and for the same reason C.R.P No. 1366/76 also is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Advocate's fee Rs, 100/- in each case.