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.= 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 amendedwith effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned two grounds was also necessary while deciding thelegality and validity of the sale deeds in question along with all other issues decided by the Courts below. 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

 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