2019 INSC 0451
     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   f ew   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