MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Impermissible and Prohibited to Reopen Computation of Holdings Under the Act: Supreme Court in Land Reforms Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, confirming that the state cannot reopen the holdings of purchasers for computing the holding of Syed Mohammed Ali Khan under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. This landmark ruling emphasizes the impermissibility of recalculating the holdings that had already been finalized in 1975.

Facts and Issues: The case revolves around the sale and possession of a large chunk of land in Medak District. Following Syed Ahmed Ali Khan's demise, his heirs agreed to sell the land to 33 purchasers, who were put into physical possession in part performance of the sale agreement. Two heirs executed the sale deed, while the third, Syed Mohammed Ali Khan, did not. However, he also did not challenge the title or possession post-enactment of the 1973 Act. The controversy arose when in 1991-1993, Khan filed a declaration under the 1973 Act, declaring surplus land which included the land already sold.

On Reopening of Finalized Holdings: The Court affirmed that the holdings declared in 1975 had attained finality, stating, "It is impermissible and prohibited to reopen the computation of their holdings under the Act." This supports the principle of legal finality.

Sale and Possession Impact: The Court recognized that uninterrupted possession of the land by the private respondents since 1960-61, despite one heir not executing the sale deed, substantially fulfills the agreement. It emphasized that the non-executing heir's subsequent attempt to reopen the issue was barred under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Judicial Finality and Non-Reviewability: The Court underscored that neither the state nor Syed Mohammed Ali Khan challenged the computation in 1975. It highlighted the prohibition of collateral attacks under the guise of computing holdings at a later stage.

Conclusion – Dismissal of Appeals: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding no merit in them and affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court clarified that the judgment does not affect the land already declared surplus under the 1973 Act.

Date of Decision: 2nd April 2024

The Authorized Officer Land Reforms Tribunal & Anr. vs Mandava Umamaheswara Rao & Ors.

Latest Legal News