Holding

Surplus land vests in the State on communication of the order to take possession, and no compensation is payable for forest produce other than fruit‑bearing trees, rendering transit permits unnecessary.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals concerning surplus agricultural land taken over by the State under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The appellants, who had either surrendered or were deemed to have surrendered surplus land that included forested areas, claimed that the forest land had not vested in the State and that they were entitled to compensation for the forest produce or to transit permits for cutting the trees. The Court held that vesting of surrendered land occurs on the communication of the order (Form IX) authorising possession, irrespective of actual physical possession, and that the forest produce also vests with the land. Since the Act and its Rules provide compensation only for fruit‑bearing trees, no claim for compensation for other trees or forest produce could arise, and no transit permit could be directed. Consequently, the judgment granting compensation and transit permits was set aside, the State's appeal was allowed, and the appellants' appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

When does surplus land surrendered under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act vest in the State?
Does forest produce on the surrendered surplus land vest in the State along with the land?
Are the landholders entitled to compensation for forest produce (non‑fruit‑bearing trees) on the vested land?
Should transit permits be issued to the landholders for cutting forest produce before vesting?
Does the Act or Rules provide for compensation for trees other than fruit‑bearing trees?

Subjects

land reformsurplus land vestingforest producecompensationtransit permitSection 11Rule 7Rule 8fruit bearing treesAndhra Pradesh

Judgment

A D. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.
V.

THE ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.

AUGUST 18, 2000

B [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Land Laws:

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act
1973, s.11 n'w. Rules 8( 1) and (2) and 11-Right to cut and remove trees from
c the forest area forming part of the surplus land-High Court holding that
despite surrender of surplus land by one category of appellants the forest land
forming part of surplus land had not vested in State Government and that
petitioners were entitled to compensation for the forest produce-High Court
holding that in respect of a second category who had not parted with possession
D vesting had not taken place and they were entitled to transit permits-Held,
judgment of High Court was unsustainable; surplus land vested in State on
communication of order passed to take over possession of land and this was not
dependent on taking over of physical possession of land- -Furlher held, there
being no provi~·ion for payment of any sum for trees (olher than fruit bearing
E trees) no claim.for compensation could arise.

The surplus lands of the appellants were taken over by the State
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Hold-
ings) Act, 1973. One category of appellants, who had surrendered their
surplus land contended that the forest land which formed a part thereof
F had not vested in the State and that they were entitled to receive compen-
sation for the forest produce. A second category who had not parted with
possession contended that the surplus land had not vested in the State.

Single Judge of the High Court held that the forest growth on the
surplus land also vested in the State along with the land and no separate
G compensation was payable for such growth. Accepting the contention of
the second category that the surplus land had not yet vested in the State,
the authorities were directed to issue transit permits in respect of the forest
growth. In an appeal by the State, Division Bench held that the forest
produce had not vested in the State and that the first category of appel-
H !ants were entitled to compensation.
552
D.R. REDDY v. ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 553
Dismissing the appeal of the surplus land holders and allowing the A
appeal of the State, the court

HELD : 1.1. The surplus land surrendered or deemed to have been
surrendered vested in the State on communication of the order passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer to take over possession of such land. Vesting
of the surplus land in the State was not dependent on taking over physical B
possession of the land which may be immediately after the vesting or
sometimes subsequent thereto. The direction for the issuance of a transit
permit in respect of the forest growth was not justified. [561-C; D; F]

1.2. There being no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of any
sum for the trees (other than fruit bearh1g trees) or any other forest
c
produce on the vested land, no claim for compensation for the same could
arise. The judgment of the High Court wa~ unsustainable. [561-G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18 of
1995. ])

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.87 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.A. Nos. 790 and 676 of 1982.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987.
E

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.87 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.A. No. 731 of 1982.

A. Subba Rao, Anil Kumar Tandale and P. Venkata Reddy for the appear-
ing parties. F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. These three appeals filed on the basis of the
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involve
common questions of facts and law. Therefore, they were heard together and G
they are being disposed of by this Judgment. Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987
filed by the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Division and the Divisional
Forest Officer, Kama Reddy, is directed against the Judgment of the Division
Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 731 of 1982,
wherea~ Civil Appeal Nos. 9617 -18/95 filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A four others are directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 790 and 676 of 1982. All the writ appeals were filed
against the judgment dated 22.4.1982 passed by the Learned Single Judge
disposing of Writ Petition Nos. 5793 of 1979 and 637 of 1982. Both these Writ
Petitions were filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others assailing the taking
over possession of surplus lands from them under the provisions of the Andhra
B
Pradesh Land Reforms(Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act I of
1973). The specific controversy raised in the cases related to the right of the
petitioners to cut and remove trees from the forest area which was a part of the
surplus land. The case of the petitioners, as appears from the discussions in the
Judgment of the learned Single Judge, was that the forest land, though a part
c of the surplus land in their hands had not vested in the State Government, and
therefore, they were entitled to cut and remove the trees standing on the said
land before handing over possession of the land to the State Government. The
writ petitioners also pleaded that long before the land was declared surplus with
them, they had moved the competent authority of the Forest Department for
D grant of transit permits to them for cutting and removing the standing trees. The
authorities sat over the matter and did not issue the requisite transit permit.
Therefore, the writ petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the authori-
ties concerned to issue necessary transit permit.

The State Government, particularly the Officers concerned of the Forest
E Department, contested the case main! y on the grounds that the entire surplus
land in the hands of the writ petitioners had vested in the State Government
along with the forest growth on a portion of the same. The lands including the
trees and other forest produce were the property of the State Government and
the writ petitioners had no right to cut and remove the trees on any portion of
the surplus land which had vested in the State Government.
F
The learned Single Judge, considering the case of the parties, formulated
the following questions for determination :-

1. When does the land surrendered by the landholder vest in the State?

G 2. Whether the forest produce standing on the land surrendered also
vests in the State along with the land? and

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on the ground that
they had been approaching for the last several years for permits to cut
and remove the forest produce on the said land, but were prevented
H from doing so on account of in-action on the part of or wrong orders
D.R. REDDY v. ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [D.P. MOHAPArRA, l.] 555
passed by the officers of the Forest Department? A

The learned Single Judge divided the writ petitioners into three catego-
ries; in the first category were included petitioners D. Narasimha Reddy and
D. Venkata Reddy, the second category related to D. Ramakrishna Reddy and
the third category related to petitioners G. Laxma Reddy and G. Bhoopal
B
Reddy. The appellants herein who were included in the first category surren-
dered the surplus land in their possession on 1.3.1979. Regarding the second
category, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had neither
surrendered the surplus land nor possession had been taken by following the
procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules, though notice in Form No.
IX was served on the petitioner on 12.11.1979. Similarly, in respect of the third c
category of petitioners, the observation was that neither notice under Form No.
IX had been issued nor served on the party. The learned Single Judge held that
vesting of the surplus land takes place on the date the Form No. IX notice is
issued and served upon the person concerned. In support of the finding, he
placed reliance on the l?nguage of Section 11 of the Act and the contents of D
Form IX. The learned Single Judge further held that the surplus land vests in
the Government free from all encumbrances from the date of the order to take
possession which is stated in Form IX notice. On the basis of the above
findings, the learned Single Judge held that in the case of categories 1 and 2,
i.e. the writ petitioners 1, 2 & 5, the surplus land had vested in the State in the
year 1979 itself, the forest growth on the said land too vested in the State along E
with the land and no separate compensation or amount is payable on account
of such forest growth. In this regard, the learned Single Judge placed reliance
on a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 355-
356 of 1982 dated 16.4.1982.
F
Dealing with the case of writ petitioners 3 & 4 who were included in the
third category, the learned Single Judge took the view that the lands proposed
to be surrendered by them have not yet vested in the State; in such a situation,
there can be no valid objection by the authorities of the Forest Department for
issuing transit permits. The learned Single Judge directed the forest authorities
to issue transit permits in favourof the writ petitioners 3 & 4 G. Bhoopal Reddy G
and G. Laxma Reddy( since deceased represented by Bhoopal Reddy) in respect
of the forest growth on the land, which they had offered to surrender as surplus
land to the State Government. Specifying the area of the said land, the learned
Judge observed the extent of land to be 46 acres 95 cents in Survey No. 836
of Hussain Nagar village. Clarifying the fact situation further, the learned H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Single Judge observed that the total area of 160 acres 88 cents comprising of
53 acres 50 cents of first petitioner, 53 acres 50 cents of second petitioner and
53 acres 80 cents of fifth petitioner which had been surrendered had vested in
the State, transit permits for the forest produce in the remaining area was
ordered to be issued according to the rules within one month of the date of
receipt of the order. The learned Single Judge further ordered that if there are
B
any fruit bearing trees on the land which was surrendered by petitioners l, 2
& 5 vested in the State, the said petitioners shall be entitled to compensation
as per Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules,
1974.

C Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Learned Single Judge, the
Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kama
Reddy Division filed Writ Appeal No. 731 of 1982 which was disposed of by
the Judgment rendered on 27.7.1987, the operative portion of which reads as
follows:-

D 'The Forest produce, we affirm, did not vest in the Government
on the facts of the case as held in the order under Appeal. The
landholders are entitled to compensation. We direct the Government
to determine and pay the compensation for the forest growth in four
months from today."
E The said Judgment is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987.

In the other cases, Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18/95 directed against the [
Judgment of the High Court dated 10.7. 1987 in Writ Appeal Nos. 676 and 790
of 1982 which were filed by the writ petitioners against the Judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5793 of 1979 and 637 of
F
1982, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeals by the order which
reads as follows:

"Following the decision in W.A. Nos. 355 and 356 of 1982 dated April
16, 1982 the Writ Appeals are dismissed. The cases do involve a
G substantial question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court, Oral
Leave is granted. Status quo as on today to be continued for two
months from today."

That is how these appeals have been filed in this Court.

H The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
D.R. REDDY v. ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 557
Act, 1973 (Act I of 1973), as stated in the Preamble, is an act to consolidate A
and amend the law relating to the fixation of the ceiling on agricultural holdings
and taking over of surplus lands and to provide for the materials connected
therewith. Section 2 of the Act contains a declaration that the act is for giving
effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in
clause (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Section 3 which
B
contains the definitions of certain terms used in the Act provides in clause(c),
that 'ceiling area' means the extent of lands specified in Section 4 or Section
4-A to be ceiling area; under clause (j) 'land' means which is used or is capable
of being used for purposes of agriculture, or for purposes ancillary thereto,
including horticulture, forest land, pasture land, plantation and tope and in-
cludes land deemed to be agricultural land under the Act. (Emphasis supplied) c
Explanations 1 & 2 to the said sub-Section are not very material for the purpose
of the present case.

Section 4 contains the provisions regarding ceiling area in respect of an
'individual' and a 'family'. Section 8 of the Act in which provision is made
for 'declaration of holding' by a person reads as follows:-
D

( 1) Every person, whose holding on the notified date together
with any land transferred to him on or after the 24th January, 1971,
whether by way of sale, gift usufructuary mortgage, exchange,
settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, and any, E
land in respect of which a trust has been created by him on or after
the 24th January, 1971, exceeds the specified limits shall, within
thirty days from the notified date or within such extended period as
the Government may notify in this behalf, furnish a declaration
in respect of his holding together with such land, to the Tribunal within
whose jurisdiction the whole or a major part of his holding is situate F
containing such particulars including those relating to lands held by
him in any part of India outside the State, and in such form as may be
prescribed.

2. Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Tribunal G
shall have power to issue notice requiring any person holding land or
residing within its jurisdiction who, it has reason to believe, holds or
is deemed to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to furnish a
declaration of his holding, or that of his family unit, under sub-section
(1) within such period as may be specified in the notice not.being less
than fifteen days from the date of its communication, and H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A such person shall furnish the declaration accordingly.

(3) If any person who is liable to furnish a declaration under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) fails to furnish the declaration within the
specified time, the Tribunal may obtain the necessary information in
such manner as may be prescribed.
B
Sec1ion 9 in which provision is made for determination of ceiling area
lays down :-

"Tribunal shall on receipt of the declaration furnished or infor-
mation obtained under Section 8, publish the same, and make an
c enquiry, in such manner as may be prescribed, and pass orders deter-
mining whether the person holds or is deemed to hold on the notified
date an extent of land in excess of the ceiling area and if so, the extent
of land so held in excess as on that date."

D Section JO contains the provisions regarding surrender of surplus land.
Sub-Sections (1), (2), (3) & (4) which are particularly relevant for the purpose
of the present case are quoted hereunder:-

" ( 1) If the extent of the holding of a person is in excess of the ceiling
area, the person shall be liable to surrender the land held in excess.
E
(2) The Tribunal shall serve on every person, who is liable to surrender
the land held in excess of the ceiling area under sub-section ( 1), a
[
notice specifying therein the extent of land which such person has to
surrender and requiring him to file a statement within such period not
being less than fifteen days, as it may fix, indicating therein, full
F particulars of the lands which such person proposes to surrender.

(3) If the person on whom a notice is served under sub-section (2), files
.the statement referred to in that sub-section within the period fixed
therefor, and the Tribunal is satisfied, after making such inquiry as it
deems fit that the proposed surrender of the land is in accordance with
G
the provisions of this Act, it shall pass an order approving the surren-
der and the said land shall thereupon be deemed to have been surren-
dered by such person.

(4) If the person on whom a notice is served under sub-section (2) does
H not file the statement referred to in that sub-section within the period
D.R. REDDY v. ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 559
fixed therefor or files such statement within the period fixed but does A
not specify therein the entire extent of land which such person has to
surrender, the Tribunal may, after giving an opportuhity to the person
concerned of being heard, itself select, in the former case the entire
extent, and in the latter case, the balance of the extent which such
person has to surrender, and pass an order to that effect, and thereupon
B
the said land or balance of land, as the case may shall be, deemed to
have been surrendered by such person."
(Emphasis supplied)

This brings us to the provision regarding vesting of land surrendered.
Section 11 which deals with the matter is quoted hereunder : C
"11. Vesting o.f land surrendered :- Where any land is surrendered or
is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act by an owner the
Revenue Divisional Officer may, subject to such rules as may be
prescribed, by order take possession or authorise any officer to take
possession of such land which shall thereupon vest in the Government D
free from all encumbrances from the date of such order :

Provided that any claim or liability enforceable against that land
immediately before the date of vesting in the Government may be
enforced only -
E
] (i) against the amount payable under this Act in respect of such land;
and

(ii) against any other property of the owner;

to the same extent to which such claim or liability was enforceable
against that land or other property, as the case may be, immediately F
before the date of vesting.

Explanation:- Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of any
law, custom, usage or agreement relating to right of easements avail-
able for any land vesting in the Government under this section over any
other land." G

In Section 20 are contained the provisions regarding appeal and Consti-
tution of the Appellate Tribunal etc.

Coming to the provisions of the Rules; in R11le 7 the procedure for
surrender of land by a person whose holding is in excess of the ceiling area H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A is laid down. From the provision in the said rule it is clear that it is the Tribunal
which has to identify the excess land to be surrendered to the State. Discretion
is vested in the Tribunal to accept or not to accept the statement filed by the
holder of surplus land regarding the land to be surrendered. Power is also
vested in the Tribunal to itself select the land to be surrendered.

B Rule 8 sets out the procedure for taking ove~ possession of the land
surrendered. In sub-rule (1) of the said rule, it is laid down that the Revenue
Divisional Officer may on receipt of a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal
under sub-rule (6) of rule 7 in respect of any land surrendered or deemed to
have been surrendered by an owner issue an order in Form IX authorising any
C Officer not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector to take possession or
occupation of such land. Under sub-rule (2), a copy of the order is to be served
on the person who has surrendered or is deemed to have .surrendered the land
and on any other person in possession or occupation of such land. In sub-rule
(4 ), provision is made that where the person concerned fails to voluntarily
deliver possession of the land, the officer authorised to take possession of the
D land may enter upon the land to take possession thereof after removing any
obstruction or any unauthorised occupant, on such land if necessary by using
such force as he thinks fit and record a certificate in Form X duly attested by
two witnesses. Under the proviso, an exception is made in the case where there
is a seasonal crop on the land as on the date of taking possession, and in that
E case, it shall be allowed to be harvested by the person in actual possession or
occupation of the land on that date, at his own risk and no compensation from
the Government for any loss or damage shall be allowed under any circum-
stances. In sub-rule (7) of rule 8, it is provided that all lands vested in the
Government shall be registered in the revenue accounts of the village as
assessed waste Government lands until their allotment or transfer, as the case
F may be. in accordance with the provisions of the Act, or until their registry is
duly altered in accordance with the rules in force relating to Government lands.

Rule JO deals with disposal of lands vested on the Government.

In Rule JO-A, provision is made for retransfer of land. vested in Govern-
G ment in certain cases.

Rule 11 which makes provision regarding fixation of value for fruit
bearing trees and structures etc. reads as follows: -

(I) The amount payable for fruit bearing trees shall be at the seinorage
H rates notified by the District Forest Officer as applicable to the district
D.R. REDDY v. ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 561
from time to time and for the Tribunal may require the District Forest A
Officer in whose jurisdiction the land is situated to furnish an estimate
of the amount payable for such trees.

(ii) The amount payable for the structures of permanent nature shall
be equivalent to the depreciated value of the structure as on the
specified date and for this purpose the Tribunal may require the B
Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, in the district to
furnish an estimate of the depreciated value of such structure.

From the conspectus of the relevant provisions in the Act and the Rules
noted in the preceding paragraph it is clear that the surplus land which is
surrendered or deemed to have been surrendered shall vest in the State on
c
communication of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to take
over possession of such land to the owner/holder/occupier of the said land. The
word 'thereupon' in Section 11 refers to such order of the Revenue Divisional
Officer. The order in Form 'IX' and the manner in which the said order will
be served on the owner are prescribed in sub- rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8. The D
provisions incorporated in sub-rule (3) to (7) of the said rule are steps to be
taken after the surplus land has vested in the State. Vesting of the surplus land
in the State is not dependent on taking over physical possession of the land
which may be immediately after the vesting or sometimes subsequent thereto.
It is our considered view that this conclusion emanates from a harmonious
E
construction of the provisions in section 11 and rule 8 and it is in accord with
the object and purpose of the Act.

Regarding payment of compensation for the standing trees or any other
forest produce on the land vested in the State Government, our attention has
not been drawn to any provision in the Act or in the Rules for payment of such F
sum. Section 15 of the Act makes provision regarding the amount payable for
any land vested in the Government under the Act which is to be calculated at
the rates specified in the second schedule. Section 16 makes provision regard-
ing claims of amount payable which is to be determined by the Tribunal. In
Rule 11 is incorporated the provision for fixation of value for fruit bearing trees
and structures. There being no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of
G
any sum for the trees (other than fruit bearing trees) or any other forest produce
on the vested land, no claim for compensation for the trees or other forest
produce standing on the surplus land surrendered or deemed to have been
surrendered arises under the provisions of the Act or the Rule. The Tribunals
are creatures of the Act and it is not open to them to travel beyond the H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A provisions of the statute. The High Court while examining the correctness or
otherwise of the order passed by the tribunal or any action taken by an officer
under the Act is also to be guided by the provisions of the statute.

The question that remains to be considered is regarding grant of permit
to the respondents for removal of the forest produce. In this regard, it is
B sufficient to state that even before vesting of the property in the State Govern-
ment the holders of the land had no right for felling and removing the standing
trees or other forest produce from the forest area. They could do so only on
getting a permit from the competent officer of the Forest Department of the
State Government authorising them to fell and remove the trees or other forest
C produce. Grant of such permit was at the discretion of the competent officer
and the power was to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the
statute applicable in the matter and the rules framed in that regard. Therefore,
no direction could be justifiably issued in the present proceedings which is
relating to vesting of surplus land under the Act, for felling and/or removal of
any forest produce from forest area.
D
The resultant position from the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs
is that the judgment of the Division Bench confirming the judgment of the
learned single Judge of the High Court, that forest produce did not vest in the
Government and that the landholders are entitled to compensation is
unsustainable. Consequentially the direction to the State Government to deter-
E
mine and pay the compensation for the forest growth is also unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Civil Appeal No.3012 of 1987 is allowed and the judgment
under challenge is set aside. Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18 of 1995 are dismissed.
In the circumstances, however, there will be no order for costs.

F S.M. C.A. No. 9617-18/95 dismissed.
C.A. No. 3012/87 allowed.