Burden of proof under ceiling law: bona fide land sales can still be ignored if made to defeat the statutory ceiling.

Transfers of agricultural land made during the relevant period were disregarded under section 7(1) because the transferor did not discharge the statutory burden of proving that the sales were not made in anticipation of, or to avoid or defeat, the ceiling law. Mere genuineness or bona fides of the transactions was insufficient. The surrounding circumstances, including clustered sales, close connections between transferors and purchasers, and the absence of contemporaneous necessity for industrial expansion, supported the inference of an evasive transfer. The transfers were therefore ignored for ceiling computation, and the finding that they were intended to defeat the Act was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transfers of agricultural lands made between 24 January 1971 and the notified date were liable to be disregarded under section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 as having been made in anticipation of, and with a view to avoid or defeat, the ceiling law.

Analysis: Section 7(1) places the burden on the transferor to prove that the transfer was not made in anticipation of, and with a view to avoid or defeat, any law relating to reduction of the ceiling on agricultural holdings. Mere validity, genuineness, or good faith of the sale is not enough. The surrounding circumstances showed that more than 220 acres were sold in a short span in December 1971, the purchasers were closely connected with the transferors, the recitals did not disclose any necessity to fund industrial expansion, and the application for expansion of the sugar industry was made only later. On these facts, the explanation that the sales were for expansion of the industry was not sufficient to discharge the statutory burden.

Conclusion: The transfers fell within section 7(1) and had to be ignored for computation of the ceiling area. The order restoring the Tribunal's finding that the sales were intended to defeat the Act was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 7(1), a transfer of land within the relevant period is to be disregarded if the transferor fails to prove a compelling, non-evasive reason for the transfer; mere bona fides or genuineness of the sale does not prevent the transfer from being ignored.

---