TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Land Transfer Regulations Apply Prospectively, No Jurisdiction for Past Transactions</h1> <h3>Deputy Collector & Anr. Versus S. Venkata Ramanaiah & Anr.,</h3> Deputy Collector & Anr. Versus S. Venkata Ramanaiah & Anr., - {1995} 6 SCC 545, 1996 AIR 224 Issues Involved:1. Retrospective effect of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation of 1959 and subsequent amendments.2. Validity of transactions made prior to the enactment of these Regulations.3. Jurisdiction of authorities under the Regulations to deal with past transactions.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Retrospective Effect of the RegulationsThe primary question was whether the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation of 1959 and its subsequent amendments in 1963 and 1970 had retrospective effect and could affect transfers made before their enactment. The Court concluded that the Regulations were prospective in nature. The judgment emphasized that there was no express provision or necessary implication in the Regulations indicating retrospective application. The Court noted that the language of Section 3(1)(a) did not suggest any retrospective effect. The absence of words such as 'whether effected before or after coming into operation of this Regulation' indicated that the Regulations were not intended to affect past transactions.Issue 2: Validity of Transactions Made Prior to the RegulationsThe Court examined various transactions that took place before the Regulations came into force. In each case, the Court upheld the validity of these transactions, stating that the Regulations did not have retrospective effect and thus could not invalidate transfers made prior to their enactment. For instance, in Civil Appeal No. 2909 of 1977, the respondents had purchased land in 1919, and the Court held that this transaction could not be scrutinized under the 1959 Regulation. Similarly, in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1991, the transfer made in 1954-55 was upheld as valid.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Authorities Under the RegulationsThe Court examined whether the authorities under the Regulations had the jurisdiction to deal with past transactions. It concluded that the authorities did not have such jurisdiction. The Court stated that Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(a) of the Regulation were intended to apply only to transfers made after the Regulations came into force. Consequently, the authorities could not use these provisions to invalidate past transactions or to evict individuals based on such transactions. The Court also noted that the rule of presumption under Section 3(1)(b) was a rule of evidence applicable only to transactions after the Regulations came into force.Separate Judgments:The Court delivered a unified judgment for all the appeals, dismissing the appeals by the authorities and allowing the appeal by T. Rajaiah. The Court appreciated the assistance rendered by Mr. Bobde, who appeared as amicus curiae.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation of 1959 and its amendments were prospective in nature and did not affect transactions made prior to their enactment. The authorities under the Regulations did not have jurisdiction to deal with past transactions. Consequently, the appeals by the authorities were dismissed, and the appeal by T. Rajaiah was allowed. There was no order as to costs in all these appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
