{"id":22109,"date":"2007-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007"},"modified":"2017-09-24T14:05:13","modified_gmt":"2017-09-24T08:35:13","slug":"state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  827 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF A.P.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSINGIREDDY RAMULU &amp; ANR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/12\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDR. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nof the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed under<br \/>\nSection 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)<br \/>\nAct, 1973(in short the `Act&#8217;).  Challenge in the Civil Revision is to the Order passed<br \/>\nby the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar (in short the `Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBackground facts in nutshell are as follows:One Maqbool Alam surrendered<br \/>\n11 acres and 07 guntas of land in Nanvath village (survey No.4\/B) in lieu of excess<br \/>\nland of the declarant.  The respondent No.1 contended that said Maqbool Alam had<br \/>\ntransferred ownership of the land under an agreement of sale dated 19.1.1971 and<br \/>\nsince then he was in continuous possession of the land by paying land revenue<br \/>\nand without considering the relevant materials the Land Reforms Tribunal,<br \/>\nAdilabad, had accepted the surrender of the land even ignoring the objection filed<br \/>\nby the applicant dated 26.9.1978.  Reference was made to Section 10(5)(a)(ii) to<br \/>\nsubstitute the stand.  It is not be noted that the Land Reforms Tribunal proceeded<br \/>\non the basis as if no objection was filed by anybody.  The Appellate Tribunal was of<br \/>\nthe view that in view of what is stated in Section 10(5)(a)(ii) and in view of the fact<br \/>\nthat the appellant was in possession since 1971, the surrender to the extent of 11<br \/>\nacres and 07 guntas of land is set aside and rest of the order was upheld. The Land<br \/>\nReforms Tribunal was directed to receive the recovery proceedings against<br \/>\nMaqbool Alam for the balance area as per law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere was no challenge to the order by Maqbool Alam but the State of<br \/>\nAndhra Pradesh, the present appellant filed a Revision as noted above.  The High<br \/>\nCourt found that respondent No.1 was in possession of the land before the notified<br \/>\ndate and possession of the the land was with him on the notified ate and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe finding of the Land Reforms Tribunal could not be sustained.  Therefore, it was<br \/>\nheld that the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity.<br \/>\n\tThe learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of what has<br \/>\nbeen stated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Yedida Chakradhararao Vs.<br \/>\nState of Andhra Pradesh [1990 (2) SCC 523] the view of the Appellate Tribunal and<br \/>\nthe High Court cannot be maintained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tStand of the respondent was that since effect of Section 10(5)(a)(ii) was not<br \/>\nconsidered, the Appellate Tribunal directed exclusion of the land in possession of<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 and there is nothing wrong in such direction.  It was, therefore,<br \/>\nsubmitted that the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application.<br \/>\n\tThe learned counsel for the appellant, in reply, had submitted that the land<br \/>\npurportedly transferred on the basis of unregistered agreement with no validity in<br \/>\nlaw.  Section 10(5)(a)(ii) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 10(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything in the Section, it shall be<br \/>\nopen to the Tribunal to refuse or to accept the surrender of any land&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) the surrender of which is not acceptable on account of a<br \/>\ndispute as to the title to the land or an encumbrance on the land or<br \/>\non account of the land being in the possession of any person<br \/>\nmentioned in 1[x x x] item (v) of Clause (i) of Section 3 or on<br \/>\naccount of the land proposed to be surrendered becoming<br \/>\ninaccessible by reason of its severance from the remaining part of<br \/>\nthe holding; and the Tribunal shall, in every such case, serve a<br \/>\nnotice on the person concerned requiring him to surrender any<br \/>\nother land in lieu thereof; and thereupon the provisions of sub-<br \/>\nsection (3) and (4) shall, mutatis mutandis apply to such surrender<br \/>\n:<br \/>\n\tThe provision comes into operation when a land holder refuses to accept<br \/>\nthe surrender of any land.  Clause (i) shows that notwithstanding anything<br \/>\ncontained in the section it shall be open to the  tribunal to refuse to accept the<br \/>\nsurrender of any land.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tClause (2) provides that it is permissible to the tribunal not to accept any<br \/>\nsurrender if there is a dispute as to the title or on account of land being in<br \/>\npossession of any person mentioned in item (4) of clause (i) of Section 3 or on<br \/>\naccount of land proposed to be surrendered becoming inaccessible by reason of<br \/>\nits severance from the remaining part of the holding.<br \/>\n\tThe specific case of respondent No.1 is that he is in possession.  In fact he<br \/>\nhad produced certain matters which were noted by the Appellate Tribunal.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court, in the impugned order, also noted that respondent No.1 was in<br \/>\npossession of land before the notified date.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe question that was considered in Yedida Chakradhararao (supra) was<br \/>\nthe interpretation of the expression `held&#8217;.  In the present case the basic issue was<br \/>\nreally the applicability of Section 10(5)(a)(ii).  The judgment relied upon by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the State, inter alia, noted as follows:<br \/>\n\tThe main submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the<br \/>\nexpress `holding&#8217; has been defined in sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the said<br \/>\nAct, the definition section set out earlier, as meaning the entire land held by<br \/>\na person (emphasis supplied) and that the use of the said word held in the<br \/>\ndefinition indicates that the person who is supposed to hold the land, must<br \/>\nnecessarily be the person in possession of the said land; and hence where,<br \/>\nin part performance for an agreement of sale or under a lease, the<br \/>\npurchaser or lessee has been put in possession of any land, the owner of<br \/>\nthe said land cannot any longer be regarded as holding the said land and it<br \/>\ncannot be said that the said land is held by him.  It was submitted by learned<br \/>\ncounsel that in view of this context although the Explanation to sub-section\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) of Section 3 is very widely worded, its meaning cannot be so extended as<br \/>\nto cover a case where the  owner of the land is no longer in possession of<br \/>\nthe land and has parted with the possession thereof under an agreement<br \/>\ncreating a right, legal or equitable, in the land concerned.  We find it difficult<br \/>\nto accept this contention.  Clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (i) of Section 3<br \/>\nset out the various capacities in which a person can be said to hold land<br \/>\nfor the purposes of the said Act and among these capacities are as a<br \/>\nusufructuary mortgagee, as a tenant and as one who is in possession by<br \/>\nvirtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part performance of a<br \/>\ncontract of sale. The very language of sub-section (i) of Section 3 indicates<br \/>\nthat land can be held as contemplated in the said sub-section by persons in<br \/>\na number of capacities.  the Explanation in plain language states that the<br \/>\nsame land can be held by one person in one capacity and by another person<br \/>\nin a different capacity and provides that such land shall be included in the<br \/>\nholdings of both such persons.  The Explanation thus clearly contemplates<br \/>\nthat the same land can be held as contemplated under sub-section (i) by<br \/>\none person as the owner and by another person as his lessee or as a<br \/>\nperson to whom the owner has delivered possession of the land in part<br \/>\nperformance of an agreement to sell.  On a plain reading of the language<br \/>\nused in the Explanation, we find it that it is not possible to accept the<br \/>\nsubmission that only where the land is in possession of a person can that<br \/>\nland be regarded as held by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tApart from what we have pointed out earlier we find that the question<br \/>\nwhich arises before us in this appeal is already covered by the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Ashrafuddin. The facts of<br \/>\nthe case were that out of the total holding of his land the respondent<br \/>\ntransferred some land to another person under two unregistered sale deeds<br \/>\npursuant to an agreement for sale and gifted away some land to his son.  In<br \/>\nthe return submitted by him under the said Act the respondent did not<br \/>\ninclude in his holding the area transferred under the unregistered sale<br \/>\ndeeds of the land gifted by him which was in the possession of the<br \/>\npurchase and donee respectively.  the Land Reforms Tribunal ignoring the<br \/>\ntwo transfers computed his holding at 1.7692 standard holding and called<br \/>\nupon him to surrender land equivalent to 0.7692 standard holding.  In<br \/>\nrevision, the High Court held that the land transferred under the two sale<br \/>\ndeeds could not be included in the holding of the respondent for<br \/>\nascertaining the ceiling area.  In coming to this conclusion, the High Court<br \/>\ngave the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to the<br \/>\nperson in possession of the plot pursuant to the contract for sale and<br \/>\ntreated the land as a part of his holding.  On appeal to this Court, a Division<br \/>\nBench comprising three learned Judges of this Court reversed the decision<br \/>\nof the High Court and held that the High Court was in error in holding that<br \/>\nthe land in the possession of the transferee cannot be taken to be a part of<br \/>\nthe holding of the respondent.  It was held by this Court that the expression<br \/>\nheld connotes both ownership as well as possession.  In the context of<br \/>\nthe definition it is not possible to interpret the term holding only in the<br \/>\nsense of possession.  The Explanation to the definition of the term<br \/>\nholding clearly contemplates that the same land can be the holding of two<br \/>\ndifferent persons holding the land in different capacities (See page 486:<br \/>\nSCC p.4).  The Court went on to state that: (SCC p.4 para 9)<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is by now well settled that a person in possession pursuant to a<br \/>\ncontract for sale does not get title to the land unless there is a valid<br \/>\ndocument of title in his favour.  In the instant case it has already been<br \/>\npointed out that the transferee came into possession in pursuance of an<br \/>\nagreement for sale but no valid deed of title was executed in his favour.<br \/>\nTherefore, the ownership remained with the respondent-transferor.  But<br \/>\neven in the absence of a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an<br \/>\nagreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is<br \/>\nentitled to remain in possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Court went on to observe that : (SCR headnote)<br \/>\n\tThere may conceivably be cases where the same land is included in<br \/>\nholding of two persons in different capacities and serious prejudice<br \/>\nmight be caused to one or both of them of they were asked to surrender<br \/>\nthe excess area.  To safeguard the interests of the owners in such a case<br \/>\nthe legislature has made a provision in Section 12(4) and (5) of the Act.<br \/>\nEven so there might be cases where some prejudice might be caused to<br \/>\nsosme tenure holders.<br \/>\nThe court further observed that : (SCR headnote)<br \/>\n\tBut if the definition of the terms `holding&#8217; is couched in clear and<br \/>\nunambiguous language the court has to accept it as it stands.  So<br \/>\nconstrued the same land can be a part of the holding of various persons<br \/>\nholding it in different capacities.  When the terms of the definition are<br \/>\nclear and unambiguous there is no question of taking extraneous aid for<br \/>\nconstruing it.<\/p>\n<p>\tThe question raised for our determination in this appeal is directly<br \/>\ncovered against the appellant by the decisions of this Court in two cases<br \/>\njust referred to by us.  In these circumstances, even assuming that there is<br \/>\nanother equally plausible view regarding the construction and the legal<br \/>\neffect of Section 3(i) of the said Act read with Explanation, that would not<br \/>\nnecessarily justify our reconsidering the question which has already been<br \/>\ndecided by this Court, although the decision was rendered by a bench<br \/>\ncomprising only three learned Judges of this Court. In our opinion, unless<br \/>\nwe find that the decisions in the aforesaid cases are erroneous, it would not<br \/>\nbe proper on our part to reconsider the same.  Apart from this, as we have<br \/>\npointed out earlier, in our view, considering the clear language of Section<br \/>\n3(i) of the said Act read with Explanation to that section, the view taken in<br \/>\nMohd. Ashrafudding case is, with respect, the correct view, and we are<br \/>\ninclined to take the same view on the construction and legal effect of that<br \/>\nprovision.&#8217;<br \/>\n\tTherefore, the matter is remitted to the Land Reforms Tribunal to consider<br \/>\nthe case of respondent No.1 in the background of his claim for possession with<br \/>\nreference to Section 10(5)(a)(ii) of the Act.  It has to be decided as to whether the<br \/>\nsaid provision has any application to the facts of the case.  After that determination<br \/>\nis done, the parameters set out by the Constitution Bench of this Court has to be<br \/>\napplied.  It is ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 Author: D A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 827 of 2002 PETITIONER: STATE OF A.P. RESPONDENT: SINGIREDDY RAMULU &amp; ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/12\/2007 BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT: J [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-24T08:35:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-24T08:35:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2198,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-24T08:35:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-24T08:35:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-24T08:35:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007"},"wordCount":2198,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007","name":"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-24T08:35:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-singireddy-ramulu-anr-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of A.P vs Singireddy Ramulu &amp; Anr on 12 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}