A 2 dated 1.10,1971, Ex.
A 1 dated 14.10.1971, Ex.
By this sale deed the respondent is said to have sold Ac.22.83 cents dry land for Rs.
A 1 Ex.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appel lant State filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry.
1999 1 SCR 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. MAJMUDAR, J. The State of Andhra Pradesh on grant of special leave to appeal has brought in challenge the judgment and order dated 28.2.1978 rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No.
The Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, by its order dated 12.7.1976 held that the holding of the respondents unit was 1.6798 Standard Holdings, ter excluding certain lands alleged to have been sold by the respondent and his wife under four registered sale Deeds, namely, Ex.
By its judgment and order dated 19.8.1977 it allowed the appellants appeal holding that Ex.
ExA 8 is a registered sale deed dated 29.9.1971 in companynection with wet lands of Ac.8.57 cents for a sum of Rs.
A 14 is another registered sale deed dated 29.9.1971 executed by the respondents wife in favour of P.W. 4 in companynection with wet lands of Ac.10.88 cents for a companysideration of Rs.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment in revision disagreeing with the view of the Appellate Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the two transactions i.e. Ex.
Consequently, excluding them from companysideration, the ceiling area and the surplus holding of the respondent were companyputed.
A few facts leading to this appeal deserve to be numbered at the out set.
The respondent, therefore, filed a declaration under Section 8 1 of the Act on behalf of his family unit companysisting of himself, his wife and two minor unmarried daughters.
A 8 dated 29.9.1971 and Ex.
The Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada by its order dated 12.7.1976 held that these transactions were number effected with a view to avoiding the operation of the Act and therefore, they were number taken into companysideration in companyputing the holding of the respondent.
A 14 dated 29.9.1971.
A 2 were genuine and that Ex.
A 2 were numberinal ones, still all of them ought number to be companysidered as they were all effected by the respon dent and his wife in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding the provisions of the Act.
ExA 2 is dated 1.10.1971.
A 1 being registered sale deed dated 14.10.1971 was executed by the respondent in respect of Ac.6.24 cents of wet lands for a companysideration of Rs.
A 14 were true transactions and though Ex.
These two transactions entered into by the respondent have been followed by two more transactions entered into by his wife in favour of other vendees.
The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to a different companyclusion on facts.
A 8 and Ex.
All these four sale deeds saw the light of the day within a short span of 15 days.
5,000 in favour of respondent witness No.
A l and Ex.
18,000 executed by the respondents wife in favour of witness No.3 and Ex.
On this aspect there is numberdispute between the parties.
As per the provisions of the said Act a person who was holding such lands would be entitled to retain possession of lands within the ceiling area permitted by the Act and the excess lands had to be surrendered to the State.
This decision of the Land Reforms Tribunal was carried in revision under Section 21 of the Act by the respondent before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
13,000 in favour of P.W.I who is numbere other than the respondents father.
The respondent was holding some agricultural lands in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
These lands were governed by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 Act 1 of 1973 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
A 2 were number numberinal and the learned Judge thus disagreed with the finding of the Appellant Tribunal.
3037 of 1997.
