As there were numberbidders, steps were taken to sell this land by private negotiations and the surrendered land was thus sold by private negotiations on 22.7.1981.
5 of 1980 before the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy.
51 of 1981, the State was number given numberice and as the land was in the possession of the State, the same was number liable to be sold.
The matter was remanded to the Land Reforms Tribunal which again companyfirmed its earlier order holding that half of the extent admeasuring 300 acres was excess land under the Ceiling Act.
The matter was companysidered in detail by the High Court and the order dated 21.7.1981 in E.A. No.
5 lakhs for setting up a hybrid seed farm.
We heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the appellants, and Smt.
Against the sale certificate issued to the appellant, the State preferred an application to set aside the companyfirmation of that sale, but the same was dismissed as time barred.
State Bank of India, meanwhile, filed a suit registered as O.S. No.
Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal by special leave is filed.
K. Amareswari, on behalf of the State.
The Tribunal held that out of the 300 acres owned by them, 150 acres of land was surplus land liable to be surrendered to the Government.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the same and held that the surrendered lands would have to be distributed among landless poor persons as envisaged by the Ceiling Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Before the sale was companyfirmed, the appellants herein deposited the sale proceeds on 22.7.1981.
The order passed by the Executing Court setting aside the sale companyducted on 21.7.1981 was challenged before the High Court in C.R.P. No.
When the matter was companysidered by the Executing Court again, it was found that the private sale was effected for inadequate companysideration by playing a fraud and a substantial injury was caused to the State.
27 of 1973 for realisation of the mortgage money.
The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act came into force on 1.1.1973.
It is relevant to numbere here that pursuant to the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, the surplus land was taken over by the State on 25.2.1976 under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act.
4627 of 1997.
State Bank of India, which was number made a party in the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal, filed three appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal challenging the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal.
However, before companyfirmation of the sale and issue of the sale certificate, the State Govt.
3364 of 1981.
The owners of the land, namely Yadavendra Plantations filed three declarations under Section 8 1 of the Ceiling Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal.
On the strength of the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the State Bank of India sought to bring the surplus land under companyrt auction sale.
were given opportunity to adduce evidence.
Elaborate arguments were advanced by the companynsel for the appellants.
The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was under the impression that under Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, the land mortgaged to the Bank was exempted from the provisions of the Ceiling Laws and permitted the Bank to proceed with the recovery of the money due to them against the land which was found to be surplus at the hands of the declarants.
filed E.A. No.
51 of 1981 dated 21.7.1981.
495 of 1985.
After the said suit was decreed on 29.8.1975 and a final decree was passed on 5.8.1976, State Bank of india filed three Execution Petitions bearing No.
34 of 1992 filed by the appellants, who are the alleged purchasers of the land in question.
It appears that while passing the order dated 7.2.1994, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was again under the erroneous impression that State Bank of India had the authority to proceed against the land which was found to be surplus at the hands of the declarants.
State Bank of India, in the meantime, also filed three appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal against the revised order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal.
In those appeals, the Bank companytended that they be permitted to proceed with the recovery of mortgage money, even against the land which was found to be surplus at the hands of the three declarants who were the mortgagors.
The appellants are purchasers of land in a companyrt auction sale.
A sum of Rs.10 lakhs was due to the State Bank of India under the mortgage executed by the original mortgagor.
On 9.4.1992, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, wrote a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy, requesting him to take steps to distribute the surplus land to the extent of 148.74 acres and to prepare appropriate assignment proposals.
68 of 1981 for setting aside the private sale which was effected pursuant to the permission granted earlier in E.A. No.
In 1968, M s Yadavendra Plantations mortgaged the said 300 acres of land in favour of State Bank of India and obtained a loan of Rs.
Yadavendra Plantations were owners of 300 acres of land at Kandi village in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh.
46 of 1977 and No.
51 of 1981 dated 21.7.1981.
Despite the order passed in C.R.P. 495 of 1985 by the High Court, the Executing Court pursued the matter further and assumed that the sale had been set aside solely on the ground that the same was for inadequate companysideration.
The learned Judge further held that the order dated 9.4.1992 was passed for the purpose of distribution of the surplus land among landless poor persons, for which necessary proposals for assignment of the land were to be made, and that there was numberillegality or irregularity in the said order of the Revenue Dvisional Officer.
In an affidavit filed in those proceedings, the Joint Collector stated that the land had already been surrendered by the declarants and it vested in the State free from all encumbrances and that the land was number liable to be sold in companyrt auction sale.
The land in question originally belonged to M s Yadavendra Plantations.
495 of 1985 had become final.
The Execution Court increased the value of the land from 3600/ per acre to Rs.7,000/ per acre and issued the sale certificate in favour of the appellants herein.
J U D G M E N T G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 2.7.1998 in Civil Revision Petition No.
However, those proceedings were set aside by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A .
It was also companytended that in the sale held pursuant to the order in E.A. No.
This order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was challenged in C.R.P. No.
1 of 1977, No.
Again, this order was challenged by the judgment debtors declarants in C.R.P. No.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the matter required an inquiry whether there was any irregularity in companyducting the sale and whether all the parties, including the State Govt.,
51 of 1981 granting permission to the judgment debtors declarants to sell the surrendered land by private negotiation was set aside.
4627 of 1997.
The Executing Court passed an elaborate order on 7.8.1981 and set aside the order in E.A. No.
