STATE OF A.P.versusSINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.

                               [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1104
    _.
                                STATE OF A.P.                            A
                                        V.
                      SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2002)
                               JANUARY 23, 2008
                                                                         B
    ct·      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

               Land Ceiling:
                Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
          Holdings) Act, 1973 - s.3(i}, clause (i) to (v) - Surrender of c
          excess land - Claim by third party that part of surrendered
          land was sold to him under an agreement of sale and ever
          since that day, he is in possession of the said land - Exclusion
          of the land by the tribunal - Challenge against - Held: It is not
          correct to say that only where the land is in possession of a D
          person can that land be regarded as 'held' by him - Same
          land can be held by one person in one capacity and by another
          person in a different capacity - Thus same land held by one
          person as the owner and by another person as his lessee or
          as a person to whom the owner has delivered possession of E
          the land in part performance of an agreement to sell, would be
          included in holdings of both such persons.
               Pursuant to a public notice, respondent no.2 filed a
          declaration in respect of lands covered by the Andhra
          Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) F
~
          Act, 1973. The act of receipt of the declaration and its
          availability for public inspection in the office of Lands
          Reforms Tribunal was announced. The declaration was
          referred to the Tehsildar under s.4(5) for local inspection
    1.    and verification. There was no objection received to the G
          public notice. Thereafter an enquiry was held after issuing
          notice to the declarant who was present on the date fixed.
          After completion of enquiry, it was held that respondent
          No.2-the declarant held land in excess of the permissible
                                      1104                            H
    1105    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A limit and was required to surrender excess land under           ..
  s.10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice was issued to him.
  The verification report, stated that the family unit
  consisted of four members i.e. declarant, his wife and two
  minor unmarried daughters.
B       Land Reforms Tribunal held that the family unit was
  entitled to 1000 standard holdings and since the standard
  holding was more than the ceiling area under s.4(A) of
  the Act, which was determined under s.9 of the Act, the
  declarant held an extent of 0.9170 standard holdings in
c excess of the ceiling area on the notified date i.e. on
  1.1.1975 and was liable to surrender the excess land.
  Surrender proceedings were thereafter initiated.
  Respondent no.2 filed statement proposing to surrender
  the lands and same was accepted by the Tribunal. Against
D the said acceptance, respondent no.1, third party filed a
  claim that surrendered land admeasuring 11.07 guntas
  was sold to him under an agreement of sale on 19.1.1971
  and ever since that date, he was in continuous possession
  of said land by paying land revenue. The Appellate
E Tribunal directed exclusion of acre 11.07 guntas. The rest
  of the order was however upheld. Tribunal was directed
  to complete the recovery proceedings against respondent
  No.2 so far as the balance land was concerned. State filed
  revision before High Court which was dismissed. Hence
F the present appeal.                                              "
        Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. Clause (i) to (v) of sub-section (i) of s.3 of
  the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
  Holdings) Act, 1973 set out the various capacities in which
G
  a person can be said to "hold" land for the purposes of          t
  the said Act and among these capacities are "as a
  usufructuary mortgagee, as a tenant and as one who is
  in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale
  or through part performance of a contract of sale". The
H
              STATE OF A.P. v. SINGIREDDY RAMU LU AND ANR             1106
                                [PASAYAT, J.]

      ·•     Explanation in plain language states that the same land A
             can be held by one person in one capacity and by another
             person in a different capacity and provides that such land
             shall be included in the holdings of both such persons.
             The Explanation clearly contemplates that the same land
             can be held as contemplated under sub-section (i) by one B
             person as the owner and by another person as h.is lessee
-:    .:,.   or as a person to whom the owner has delivered
             possession of the land in part performance of an
             agreement to sell. Thus, it is not correct to say that only
             where the land is in possession of a person can that
             land be regarded as held by him. [Para 6] [1109-G;
                                                                             c
.•           1110-A, B, C, D]
                    Yedida Chakradhararao (Dead) Through his Lrs. v.
             State of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 2 SCC 523; State of Andhra
             Pradesh and Ors. V. M. Lakshmi Devi and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC       D
             421 - relied on.
                  CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 827
             of 2002.
                   From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.09.1999 of E
             the High Court of Judicatureof Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
             in Civil Revision Petition No. 3176 of 1995.
                 Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V.
             George for the Appellant.
      ...                                                                    F
                  V. Sudheer, M.B.R.S. Raju, Sunita, S. Balaji, J.B. Ravi,
             S. R. Sharma and S. Srinivasan, Advs. for the Respondents.
                  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                  Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
 ..          the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra G
      t      Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision filed by the State of Andhra
             Pradesh dismissing the revision petition filed.
                  2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
                  Respondent No.2 was a declarant in respect of lands        H
    1107      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 1 S.C.R.


 A covered by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
   Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short the 'Act'). The
   declaration was filed by respondent No.2 Maqbool Alam under
   Section 8(1) of the Act in response to the public notice in Form
   IV as required under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land
·B Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short
   the 'Rules') containing the particulars of the land and the persons
   holding such lands in respect of the declaration received which
   was duly notified. By various modes the fact of receipt of the
   declaration and its availability for public inspection in the office
 c of Lands Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad (in short the 'Tribunal') was
   announced by beat of drums in all the villages in which the lands
   were situated on 6. 7.1975. The declaration was referred to the
   Tehsildar under Section 4(5) for local inspection and verification.
   A copy received from the Tehsildar, Adilabad was furnished to
 D the declarant and to the officer authorized by the Government in
   this behalf. No objection was received in response to the public
   notice. Thereafter an enquiry was held on 5.10.1976 after issuing
   notice to the declarant who was present on the date fixed. The
   officer authorized by the Government i.e. Special Tehsildar (Land
 E Reforms), Adilabad was also present. Enquiry was completed
   on 22.2.1977. After completion of enquiry by the Addi. Revenue
   Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal) Adilabad Division, it
   was held that the declarant holds land in excess of the
   permissible limit and he was required to surrender excess land
   Under Section 10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice was issued
 F to him under Section 10(2) of the Act and Form VI under the
   Rules. According to the verification report which was scrutinized,
   the family unit consisted of four members i.e. declarant, his wife
   and two minor unmarried daughters. By order dated 22.2.1977
   the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms
 G Tribunal) held that the family unit was entitled to 1000 standard
   holdings and since the standard holding was more than the
   ceiling area under Section 4(A) of the Act, which was determined
   under Section 9 of the Act the declarant held an extent of 0.9170
   standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area on the notified
 H date i.e. on 1.1.1975 and was liable to surrender the excess
                   STATE OF A.P. v. SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.               1108
                                     [PASAYAT, J.]

           .+    land. Surrender proceedings were thereafter initiated and the A
                 declarant was directed to file surrender statement. On 2.1.1999
                 respondent No. 2 filed the surrender statement proposing to
                 surrender the lands in Wanvath Village, Adilabad District and
                 the same was accepted by the Tribunal on 2.1.1999. Against·
                 the said acceptance of surrender, a third party i.e. respondent B
                 No. 1 filed a Claim bearing L. R.A. No. 86 of 1994 before the
           ..-   Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar (in short the

-·     •         'Appellate Tribunal') contending that accepting the surrender in
                 respect of land situated in Survey No. 4/B admeasuring Acres
                  11.07 Guntas of Nanvath Village in lieu of excess land. His stand c
                 was that the respondent No. 2 had shown in his declaration that
                  he_ sold the surrendered land under agreement of sale dated
                  19.1.1971 and ever since that date, he was in continuous .
                  possession of the land by paying land revenue. Grievance was
                  that the Tribunal without considering relevant records accepted
                                                                                      D
....              the surrender of the land and ignoring the objection petition filed
           ).
                  by respondent No.1 on 26.9.1978. It was therefore stated that
                  the observation that no objection was received within the
                  stipulated time is incorrect. The agreement for sale dated
                  6.2.1971 and certain other documents were filed. The Appellate
                  Tribunal by its judgment dated 28.9.1994 allowed the appeal E
                  and directed exclusion of acre 11.07 guntas of Nanvath Village.
                  The rest of the order was however upheld. Tribunal was directed
                  to complete the recovery proceedings against respondent No.2
                  so far as the balance land is concerned.
                                                                                      F
                         3. Appellant-State filed Civil Revision assailing the
                  judgment of the AP,pellate Tribunal but the same was dismissed
                  by the impugned order.
                       4. In support of the appeal, it was contended that the
                 declarant himself had not chosen to file an appeal. The G
       .1        respondent No. 1 could not file an appeal before the Appellate
                 Tribunal in the absence of an appeal by the declarant. It was
                 further submitted that there was no registered sale deed and
                 the alleged agreement for sale was not of any consequence.
                                                                                     H
    1109       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008) 1 S.C.R.


A       5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand              •
    supported the order of the High Court affirming that of the
    Appellate Tribunal.
       6. In Yedida Chakradhararao (Dead) Through his Lrs. V
  State of Andhra Pradesh (1990 (2) sec 523), it was inter alia
B observed as follows:

           "6. Section 8 provides, in brief, that every person whose         ...
                                                                                   •
           holding on the notified date together with any land
           transferred by him on or after January 24, 1971 exceeds
                                                                                   •
c          the specified limits, shall within 30 days from the notified
           date, namely January 1, 1975 or such extended period as
           the government may notify in that behalf furnish a declaration
           in respect of his holding to the competent Tribunal ..
             11. The main submission of learned counsel for the
D          appellants is that the expression 'holding' has been defined
           in sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the said Act, the definition
           section set out earlier, as meaning the entire land held by
           a person (emphasis supplied) and that the use of the said
           word "held" in the definition indicates that the person who
E          is supposed to hold the land, must necessarily be the
           person in possession of the said land; and hence where,
           in part performance for an agreement of sale or under a
           lease, the purchaser or lessee has been put in possession
           of any land, the owner of the said land cannot any longer
F          be regarded as holding the said land and it cannot be
           said that the said land is held by him. It was submitted by
           learned counsel that in view of this context although the
           Explanation to sub-section (i) of Section 3 is very widely
           worded, its meaning cannot be so extended as to cover
           a case where the owner of the land is no longer in
G
           possession of the land and has parted with the possession
           thereof under an agreement creating a right, legal or
           equitable, in the land concerned. We find it difficult to
                                                                               '   '

           accept this contention. Clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (i)
           of Section 3 set out the various capacities in which a
H
 STATE OF A.P. v. SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.                 1110
                    [PASAYAT, J.]

    person can be said to "hold" land for the purposes of the A
    said Act and among these capacities are "as a usufructuary
    mortgagee, as a tenant and as one who is in possession
    by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part
    performance of a contract of sale". The very language of
    sub-section (i) of Section 3 indicates that land can be B
    held as contemplated in the said sub-section by persons
    in a number of capacities. The Explanation in plain
    language states that the same land can be held by one
    person in one capacity and by another person in a different
    capacity and provides that such land shall be included in        c
    the holdings of both such persons. The Explanation thus
    clearly contemplates that the same land can be held as
    contemplated under sub-section (i) by one person as the
    owner and by another person as his lessee or as a person
    to whom the owner has delivered possession of the land
                                                                  0
    in part performance of an agreement to sell. On a plain
    reading of the language used in the Explanation, we find
    it that it is not possible to accept the submission that only
    where the land is in possession of a person can that land
    be regarded as held by him."
                                                                  E
    7. The position was reiterated in State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors. v. M. Lakshmi Devi & Ors. [1993(2) SCC 421).

     8. In view of the law as delineated by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal
is bound to succeed. The orders passed by the Appellate              F
Tribunal and the High Court in the Civil Revision cannot be
maintained and are therefore set aside.
       9. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.
D.G.                                            Appeal allowed.      G