STATE OF A.P. versus SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.

STATE OF A.P. versus SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.

It is not correct to say that only where the land is in possession of a person can that land be regarded as held by him; same land can be held by one person as owner and by another as lessee or by virtue of part performance of an agreement of sale, and should be included in both holdings. Tribunal and High Court erred in excluding the land from holdings of the declarant.

Parties
Appellant: State of Andhra Pradesh; Respondent No.1: Singireddy Ramulu; Respondent No.2 (declarant): Maqbool Alam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Land Ceiling, Agricultural Holdings, Land Reforms, Possession Under Agreement to Sell
Property Law Land Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Land Reforms Possession Under Agreement to Sell

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Andhra Pradesh

Appellant

Singireddy Ramulu

Respondent No.1

Maqbool Alam

Respondent No.2 (declarant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of surrendered land claimed to be under agreement of sale and in possession of third party is sustainable under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973

Ratio Decidendi

It is not correct to say that only where the land is in possession of a person can that land be regarded as held by him; same land can be held by one person as owner and by another as lessee or by virtue of part performance of an agreement of sale, and should be included in both holdings. Tribunal and High Court erred in excluding the land from holdings of the declarant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the Appellate Tribunal and High Court set aside
  • No order as to costs