- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Appineni Vidyasagar v. State Of A.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant claims to have purchased the disputed agricultural land from Kondapally Hanumantha Rao under an unregistered sale deed dated 20-02-1957 and to have remained in possession thereafter. Proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were later initiated against Kondapally Hanumantha Rao when he was found to hold land in excess of the permitted ceiling. Rao surrendered certain parcels as surplus land, and the surrendered list included the land said to be in the appellant’s possession.
The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, acting as Land Reforms Tribunal, accepted the surrender. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal affirmed that decision, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appellant’s civil revision petition (CRP No. 152 of 1996) on 10-02-1998. The present judgment addresses the appellant’s further appeal challenging the High Court’s order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an unregistered sale deed and subsequent possession confer a legally valid title that excludes the land from being treated as part of the transferor’s holding for ceiling proceedings.
- Whether the appellant acquired title by adverse possession, thereby preventing the land from being counted in the transferor’s surplus holding.
- Whether under Section 10(5) of the A.P. Land Reforms Act the Tribunal was obliged to refuse acceptance of surrender of land that was the subject of an alleged encumbrance in favour of the appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The unregistered sale deed of 20-02-1957, though imperfect, coupled with long possession, created an encumbrance and conferred equitable title on the appellant.
- Under Section 10(5) of the Act, the Tribunal should have rejected surrender of the disputed land because it was “involved in dispute,” and instead required the transferor to surrender other undisputed lands.
- In the alternative, the appellant had perfected title by adverse possession.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of A.P. v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, (1982) 2 SCC 1 | Possession pursuant to an agreement for sale without a registered document does not divest ownership; such land forms part of the transferor’s “holding” for ceiling purposes. | The Court relied on this decision to hold that, absent a registered sale deed, ownership remained with Kondapally Hanumantha Rao and the land validly formed part of his surplus holding. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reviewed the concurrent findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court, noting that each had correctly applied the principle that possession under an unregistered sale deed does not confer legal title. Relying on Mohd. Ashrafuddin, the Court reiterated that the ownership of the land continued to vest in Kondapally Hanumantha Rao and therefore constituted part of his holding for ceiling calculations.
On adverse possession, the Court endorsed the lower tribunals’ conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the requisite elements to perfect title.
Addressing Section 10(5), the Court observed that the provision grants the Tribunal a discretionary power—not an enforceable right in favour of the appellant—to refuse surrender of land involved in disputes. Because this argument had not been raised before the lower forums, and because the discretion lay solely with the Tribunal, the Court declined to entertain it for the first time on appeal.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; NO COSTS AWARDED.
The dismissal confirms that land held under an unregistered sale deed remains part of the transferor’s holding for ceiling purposes, absent proof of perfected title or adverse possession. The decision leaves the appellant without the claimed land, but it does not announce any new legal doctrine; it merely applies existing precedent to the facts.
Judgment
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant in this appeal has impugned the order of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRP No. 152 of 1996 dated 10-2-1998 whereby the High Court affirmed the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal, which in turn affirmed the order of the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal at Khammam.
3. The case of the appellant is that he had purchased the land in question under an unregistered sale deed dated 20-2-1957 from one Kondapally Hanumantha Rao. He was in possession of the land in question since the alleged date of sale.
4. A proceeding was initiated against Kondapally Hanumantha Rao under the land ceiling laws as he was found in possession of lands beyond the permissible limit. Kondapally Hanumantha Rao surrendered some lands, as required, but later it was found that the lands surrendered by him included lands which he had validly transferred to third parties. Thereafter, excluding the lands sold to third parties, the surplus lands of Kondapally Hanumantha Rao was determined for being taken over by the State. In that process, the land sold to the appellant was shown as the surplus land of Kondapally Hanumantha Rao.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant having purchased the land, though not under a registered sale deed, did acquire title though imperfect. All the same, he was in possession of the land in question and, therefore, according to him, the landlord could not have surrendered the land in possession of the appellant, and he should have been compelled to surrender other lands which were in his personal possession in excess of the ceiling limit. He drew our notice to Section 10(5) of the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and submitted that since there was an encumbrance on the land in question on account of the unregistered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the surrender made by the landlord of the land in question, and ought to have compelled him to surrender other lands which were not involved in dispute of any kind as contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act.
6. The High Court having considered the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, came to the conclusion that both the Tribunals had fully considered the matter and had reached the right conclusion that the land, of which the appellant may have been in possession for some time, could be surrendered because in the absence of valid transfer of title the land formed part of the holding of the owner. The courts below have also relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of A.P v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin (1982) 2 SCC 1 in which it was observed as follows:
“9. It is by now well settled that a person in possession pursuant to a contract for sale does not get title to the land unless there is a valid document of title in his favour. In the instant case it has already been pointed out that the transferee came into possession in pursuance of an agreement for sale but no valid deed of title was executed in his favour. Therefore, the ownership remained with the respondent transferor. But even in the absence of a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is entitled to remain in possession. If per chance he is dispossessed by the transferor, he can recover possession. The transferor cannot file any suit for getting back possession but all the same he will continue to be the owner of the land agreed to be transferred. The respondent, in our considered opinion, satisfies the conditions contemplated by the definition of the term ‘holding’ and the land transferred by him under a defective title deed will form part of his holding. The High Court, therefore, erred in holding that the land in possession of the transferee cannot be taken to be a part of the holding of the respondent transferor.”
7. We have perused the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal as well as the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and we find no reason to take a different view. It cannot be disputed that the land in question had not been validly transferred in favour of the appellant and, therefore, the erstwhile owner in the absence of a valid sale deed continued to be the holder of the land. The matter has also been examined from another angle, namely, whether the appellant acquired title to the land in question by adverse possession. Even that has been answered against the appellant. In these circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the CRP preferred by the appellant.
8. So far as sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act is concerned, it does not give to the appellant a right to object to a surrender by the holder, to the Tribunal, of any land comprised in his holding. The Act, no doubt, gives a discretion to the Tribunal not to accept surrender of the lands which are involved in disputes. That, however, is a discretion of the Tribunal and has to be exercised by the Tribunal in appropriate cases having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Moreover, this submission was neither urged before the High Court nor before the Land Reforms Tribunal and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, the appellant is not permitted to raise this argument before us for the first time. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. No costs.
Alert