9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether lands under agreements to sell should be included in the holdings of vendors and vendees. - Whether the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal should be revisited based on the genuineness of transactions. - Whether the Supreme Court can take suo motu notice to rectify injustice under the Land Reforms Act. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether lands under agreements to sell should be included in the holdings of vendors and vendees. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that such lands must be considered part of the holdings of both parties. The Court clarified that even though an agreement to sell does not transfer title, the land covered by the agreement should be included in the holdings of both the vendor and the vendee. The Court ruled that the entire land involved in the transactions should be considered part of the holdings of both parties. Regarding the revisiting of orders by the Land Reforms Tribunal based on the genuineness of transactions, the Court examined a situation where the appellate authority had deemed the transactions genuine and directed their exclusion from the holdings. The Court acknowledged the technical correctness of not revisiting orders against other partners and firms. However, the Court invoked its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to rectify glaring injustices. The Court highlighted the objective of the Land Reforms Act to ensure socioeconomic justice and distribution of excess land among landless individuals. The Court, therefore, decided to take suo motu notice of the cases, treating them as special leave petitions and considering the legality of the appellate authority's orders. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the Land Reforms Tribunal to reopen the cases filed by the partners and managing partners of the company. The Tribunal was instructed to determine surplus lands according to the law and issue appropriate orders accordingly. The Court emphasized that the lands covered under the agreements should be treated as held by both the vendors and the vendees. No costs were awarded, and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh was directed to take immediate action based on the Court's order.
|
