KANCHERLA MADHUSUDHANA RAOversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

A                    KANCHERLA MADHUSUDHANA RAO
                                   v.
                       STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                                  JULY 24, 2000

B          [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]


           A.P. land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973:

          s.4.A-The declarant, a major son, having land excess than the ceiling
C   limit-Claiming set off against deficiency in the holding of his mother-Held,
    declarant cannot refuse to surrender the excess land-Nor can be set off the
    excess land against deficiency in the holding of his mother.

          P.K.R. Raju v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, (1980) 1APl..J307, approved.

D         S. Pandya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 1 APl..J 9, already
    overruled.

        CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
    14890ofl999.

E        From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High
    Court in C.R.P. No. 793 of 1995.

          Ms. K. Amreshwari, G. Venkatesh and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair for the
    Petitioner.

F         Anil Kumar Tandale for the Respondent.

          The (ollowing Order of the Court was delivered :

        This is a Special Leave Petiti1m directed against the judgment of the
    Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRP 793of1995 dated 23.6.1999.
G
          The matter relates to interpretation of Section 4A of the A.P. Land
    Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holding· Act, 1973. The petitioner before us
    is the landholder who claims that he need not surrender the excess land in
    his possession inasmuch as he is a major son and his mother is owning less
H   than a family holding and because the deficiency in her holding is more than
                                       668
             KANCHERLA MADHUSUDHANA RAO v. STATE                             669
the excess in the petitioner's holding.                                             A
        Section 4A of the Act reads as follows:

            "Notwithstanding anything in Section 4, where an individual or an
        individual who is a member of a family unit, has one or more major
        sons any such major son either by himself or together with other            B
        members of the family unit of which he is a member, holds no land or
        holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then, the ceiling
        area, in the case of the said individual or the family unit of which the
        said individual is a member computed in accordance with Section 4,
        shall be increased in respect of each such major son by an extent of        C
        land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such major son or the
        family unit of which he is a member, or as the case may be, by the
        extent of land by which the land held by such major son or the family
        unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiling area."

      The above section was incorporated by the A.P. Amending Act x of              D
1977. The Statement of Object and Reasons appended to the Bill read as
follows:

        "According to the definition of 'family Unit' under the Andhra Pradesh
        Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act I of
        1973), major sons and major daughters are not to be members of the E
        family unit but are treated as separate individuals. Consequently, if a
        major son owns land either as a separate property or as a sharer in
        the joint family, the ceiling limit is applied to such land, and it is not
        taken into account for applying the ceiling limit of the father's family.
        Representations have been received that the implementation of the F
        Act results in hardship to Muslims and Christians since these
        communities do no have the system of joint families and even major
        sons in these communities do not have a share in the ancestral
        property during the life time of he father unlike in the case of joint
        Hindu families. It has, therefore, been decided to make suitable
        amendment to the Act to remove this hardship and equalise the G
        includence of the Act on all communities irrespective of their personal
        laws."

In our view, the effect of Section 4A is as follows. If the extent of land owned
lly the members of a family unit (i.e. the declarant, his or her spouse and minor
children) exceeds the ceiling area, in case the declarant has a major son on        H
     670                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   the notified date i.e. 1.1.1975, then-in case the major son does not own any
    agricultural land-the family unit of his parent (the declarant) shall be entitled
    to the benefit of an additional unit of ceiling area. In case the major son owns
    land, within the ceiling area, but upto a limit (say) 0.40 units then the family
    unit of is parent (declarant) shall have the benefit of an extra 0.60 unit of
B   ceiling area. Broadly, this is the manner in which the provisions of Section
    4A work out.

           But the petitioner before us is not the parent but the major son. He is
    seeking to apply the section in the reverse fashion as was held permissible
    in S. Pandya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) I APLJ 9. That case no doubt
C   supports the petitioner. There the family unit of the parent did not own excess
    land, but the major son had excess land. The learned judge interpreted Section
    4A as applicable to such a case and held that inasmuch as the excess of the
    major son was less then the deficiency of the parent, the major son need not
    surrender his excess land.

D         But the above judgment of the learned Single Judge was overruled in
    P.K.R. Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh. (1980) 1 APLJ 307. The Division
    Bench explained section 4A (at p.310) as follows:

                "In our view, it is quit manifest from the content of the Section
            extracted supra that the Legislature positively conferred the benefit
E           on the individual who is a parent and the increase irresistibly is in the
            holding of the parent, should there be any deficit in the holding of
            the major son.

    The Bench also observed that so far as the converse case is concerned (i.e.
F   where the major son has excess and the parent's family unit is not in excess),
    it is not covered by section 4A and observed as follows:

                "It is only the converse case that is conspicuous not only from
            the content of the Section but also from the object with which it has
            been enacted.
G
    In Pandya 's case decided by the learned single judge, it was found that the
    family unit of the major son had an excess 0.2668 family holding and it was
    held that he need not surrender the excess because his mother's family unit
    had a deficiency of more than 0.2668. This method of computation was not
    accepted by the Division Bench in P.K.R. Raju's case as not falling within the
H   content of section 4A.
             KANCHERLA MADHUSUDHANA RAO v. STATE                           671

       In our view, the decision of the Division Bench in P.K.R. Raju's case is   A
correct and the decision of the learned Single Judge in Pandya 's case was
rightly overruled.

      In the present order, the High Court applied the judgment of the Division
Bench and held that the declarant, the major son, who is in excess cannot
refuse to surrender the excess land and that he cannot set off his excess         B
against the deficiency in the holding of his mother, We, therefore, do not find
any error in the judgment of the High Court.

      The special leave petition is dismissed.

RP.                                                        Petition dismissed.    C