NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4658 OF 2008

Bikkina Rama Rao & Ors.              ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Special Deputy Tahsildar  (Tribal Welfare)  Kota Ramachandrapuram  & Ors.        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the High Court

of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ

1

Appeal No.675 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of

the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal filed by

the appellants herein.

2. A  few facts need  mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.

3. The dispute relates to the land measuring around

60 acres comprised in survey Nos.462 and 472

situated at Ganaparavaram village of Buttaigudem

Mandal, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to

as “the suit  land”).   This dispute is governed by the

provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land

Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1

of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation”).  

4. The claim of the appellants is that they have

purchased the  suit land  vide registered  sale  deeds

dated 29.01.1977 executed by several vendors.

However, the  State (Special  Deputy  Collector ­Tribal

welfare,  Kota  Ramachandra  Puram,  West  Godavari),

2

questioned the  bona fides  of the transactions in

question and accordingly issued the notices to the

appellants alleging therein that since these sale deeds

were found executed in contravention of Section 3 (1)

(a) of the Regulation by the Vendors and the Vendees

(appellants) and, therefore, they were null and void.

5. It is this issue which was probed by the Revenue

Authorities by holding an inquiry under the Regulation

such as in the  first  instance,  by the Special Deputy

Collector by order dated 24.04.1984, thereafter by the

Agent to  Govt. (as an  Appellate  Authority)  by  order

dated 27.10.2001 followed by the State (as a

Revisionary Authority) by order dated 16.07.2007 and

by the  High  Court in its  writ jurisdiction by order

dated 02.08.2007 and thereafter in its intra court

appellate jurisdiction by the impugned order.

6. Though the appellants contested the issue on

facts and in law but it was consequently decided

3

against the appellants by all the Authorities and the

Courts,  wherein it  was  held that the sale  deeds in

question were executed in contravention of the

provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and,

therefore, they are declared null and void.

7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the

High Court and have filed the present appeal by way of

special leave in this Court.

8. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the Authorities

and the Courts were justified in holding that the sale

deeds in question are null and void because they were

executed in contravention of the provisions of the

Regulation.

9. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for

the  appellants and  Mr.  B.  Adinaryana  Rao, learned

senior counsel for the respondents.

4

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we are

inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside

the impugned order as also the order dated

02.08.2007 passed by the Single Judge, remand the

case to the Single Judge (writ court) for deciding the

appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits in accordance

with law.

11. The need to remand the case to the High Court

(writ court) has arisen for two reasons.  

12. First, the High Court did not examine the case in

the context of the definition of the expression

“Transfer” as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation;

and Second, certain documents filed by the appellants

to  prove the transactions in  question as  being legal

and  not hit by Section 3 of the Regulation as amended

with effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered.

5

13. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned

two grounds  was also  necessary  while deciding the

legality and validity of the sale deeds in question along

with all other issues decided by the Courts below.

14. It is for this reason, we feel that it would be in the

interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the

High Court (Single Judge­writ court) for deciding the

appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits in accordance

with law on all the issues arising in the case including

those  mentioned  above.  The subsequent  allottees  of

the land in question, who made an application seeking

their impleadment in the  appeal (I.A.  No.2/2008) is

allowed. They are allowed to become parties in the writ

petition.  They will also be heard.

15. We, however,  make it clear that we have not

expressed any opinion on  merits having formed an

opinion to remand the case though learned counsel for

the parties argued several issues arising in the case.

6

Indeed, we refrained ourselves from going into the

issues urged.

16. The High Court (Single Judge­writ court) will,

therefore, decide the writ petition on merits strictly in

accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations

made by this Court, on the issues arising in the case.

17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned

order is set aside.  

         ………...................................J.        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

   …...……..................................J.                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; May 03, 2019

7