Pragallapati Sambasiva Rao vs Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Reforms) Rajahmundry and another

Ramchandra Raju, J.—This revision petition is filed u/s 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') The petitioner filed a declaration as provided u/s 8 of the Act on behalf of the family unit consisting of himself, his wife and five minor sons. As provided u/s 5 of the Act, the family unit is entitled to 1.40 standard holdings. The Land reforms Tribunal found the holding of the family unit to be 1.5540 standard holdings and declared that there is an excess of land covered to 0.1550 standard holdings to be surrendered to the Government. At the relevant time i.e., on 1-5-1975 which is the notified date, the petitioner is holding Acs. 12.57 cents of double crop wet land. Subsequent to 24-1-1971 between dates 13-3-1972 and 22-4-1972 the petitioner sold a total extent of Acs. 4.73 cents of double crop wet land under the five sale deeds Exs. D-8 to D-12, He sold the same for a total consideration of about Rs. 28,000/-. Admittedly the petitioner has a business. He has both a cloth shop and a medicine shop. The purpose of sales mentioned in the sale deeds is that the money is required by the petitioner for investment in business. But in the declaration the petitioner has stated that he utilised a sum of Rs. 13,000/- out of the sale consideration for discharging debts also. That out of that amount he discharged any debts was not accepted by the Tribunals and the evidence adduced by the petitioner in respect of discharge of antecedent debts was disbelieved. The petitioner is an income tax assessee. He filed his accounts to show that the moneys received by him towards the sales were credited in his accounts. The alienees also gave evidence speaking about their purchasing the lands and paying consideration amounts and their being in possession and enjoyment of the lands since the dates of purchase. As a matter of fact, both the Tribunals did not disbelieve the truth of the transactions. They are found to be real transactions in the sense that there were true sales and purchases and that they were not nominal transactions.

Special provision is made in respect of certain transfers u/s 7 of the Act. It is provided therein that:

Where on or after the 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him, then the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on such person, and where he has not so proved, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person.

So, having regard to this provision, two things must be established by a declarant to claim exemption from the computation of his ceiling area, any land sold subsequent to 24-1-1971. The first thing is that it must be shown that the transfer is a true one and not a nominal or sham transaction and the second is that he did not make such a transfer in anticipation of and with a view to avoid or defeat the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings.

So far as the first requirement is concerned, neither the land Reforms Tribunal nor the Lands Reforms Appellate Tribunal doubted the truth of the sales made by the petitioner. With regard to the second requirement, the Land Reforms Tribunal by observing that the petitioner had not let in any positive evidence to show that he had no knowledge of the coming Legislation then and that the circumstances of the family and the business were such that it was inevitable for him to dispose of those lands in such haste, found that he has failed to prove that he did not transfer the lands involved in the sales after 24-1-1971 in anticipation of and with a view to avoid or defeat the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal while holding that the alleged reason of discharging the antecedent debts is only a make believe affair and the sales effected were not for any pressing debts, came to the conclusion that they were effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings. To show that the sale transactions are genuine, the Land Reforms Tribunal erred in thinking that the petitioner should have let in evidence to show that he had then no knowledge of the coming Legislation on land ceilings. At that time everybody knew that the Governments in the country were contemplating to bring in some legislations to limit land holdings and it is not possible to say that the petitioner was not aware of it. But that does not necessarily mean that every alienation made thereafter should be treated as one made to avoid or defeat the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings.

No doubt, as provided in Sec. 7 of the Act, the burden is on the petitioner to show that he did not make the alienations with a view to avoid the law relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings. But that is a proof which is negative in nature. With what view or what weighed with him when he made the transfers and what worked in his mind in making the transfers the transferor alone would be knowing, If he comes forward and says that he did not make the transfers with a view to avoid any future legislation on agricultural holdings and gives some other reason which is a plausible one for making the alienations, in the absence of any other circumstances to show the contrary, that explanation must be accepted. As already mentioned above, the reason given in the sale deeds is that the money is required by the petitioner for investment in his business. His accounts show that the moneys realised by the sales were credited in the accounts of the business. One need not have any pressing need to think of selling lands for investment in business. He could have sold the lands for improving his business. On mere suspicion without any positive evidence to the contrary it is not possible to reject the explanation given by the petitioner. The appellate Tribunal is wrong in rejecting the explanation of the petitioner because he is not able to prove by satisfactory evidence that he actually utilised some amount for discharging the antecedent debts which he gave as an additional reason for making the sales than the one mentioned in the sale deeds. That additional reason may not be available to him. But when the reason given in the sale deeds is a plausible one, the sales should not have been viewed with suspicion. Accordingly the C.R.P. is allowed and the case is remitted back to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Rajahmundry to dispose of the case afresh excluding the extent of land sold by the petitioner under Exs. D-8 to D-12. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/.