Holding

When land is surrendered as surplus by a party in possession through part performance of a sale and the owner does not also surrender it, possession reverts to the owner under Section 12(4) and Rule 9; only simultaneous surrender by both parties triggers Section 11 and vests the land in the Government.

Summary

The respondents entered into an agreement to sell 294 acres of land to a sugar company and handed over possession. The company later declared the land as surplus under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and surrendered it. The Primary Land Tribunal held that the respondents were not owners, but the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal reversed that decision, directing the State to hand over possession to the respondents. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the surrender of the land released it from any obligation to return possession. The Court examined Section 12(4) of the Act and Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules, holding that when land is surrendered by a party in possession through part performance of a sale and not by the owner, possession must revert to the owner; only when both surrender does Section 11 apply and the land vests in the Government. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 12(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, together with Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules, requires possession of land surrendered as surplus by a party in possession through part performance of a contract for sale to revert to the owner when the owner has not also surrendered the land.
Whether Section 11 of the Act applies and the land vests in the Government when both the owner and the party in possession surrender the land.
Interpretation of Section 3(i) regarding the declaration of land as a holding by the owner and by a person in possession through part performance.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973s. 11, s. 12, s. 3(i)
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974s. Rule 9

Subjects

land reformsurplus landreversion of possessionsection 12rule 9ceiling on agricultural holdingsland surrendergovernment vesting

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC. A
v.
M. LAKSHMI DEVI ETC. ETC.

JANUARY 13, 1993

(LAUT MOHAN SHARMA. CJ AND S. MOHAN AND B
S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

____..; Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilng on Agricultural Holdings) Act,
1973/Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
Rules, 1974: C

Sections 3(i) and 12/Rule 9-Land sumndered by party in possession
through paTt peiformance of agreement to sell-Whether to revert to owner.

The respondents entered into an agreement to sell land admeasor·
log 294 acres, to a Sugar Company, and in pursuance thereof hauded over D
possession of the land to the company. The company filed a declaration
under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Celling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 declaring surplus land held by it, which
included the land in question and this land was surrendered by the
company as surplus land. The primary Land Tribunal negatived the E
. -J.. . contention of the respondents that since the title to the said land bad not
passed lo the company, the respondents remained the owners thereof, and
were entitled lo the reversion of its possessioli under section 12(4) of the
Act. However, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal,
accepting the respondents' contention, directed the appellants to band
over the possession of 294 acres of land to the respondents. The Revision F
Petitions of the. State were dismissed by the High Court.

In the appeals before this.. Court, on behalf of the State-appellants,
it was contended that the Appeliate Tribunal lfllS in error in directing the
appellants to hand over to the respondents possession of the land in G
question since there bad. been a surrender of the said land and the
appellants were under no obligation lo return it to the respondents.

On behalf of the respondents ii was contended that the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder obliged the appellants to hand hack to the
respondents the possession of the land and it was then for the respondents H
179
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A to decide which particular part or their holding they should surrender as
surplus, if any, under the terms or the Act.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD 1.1. By reason or section 3(i) or the Andhra Pradesh Land
B Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the owner Is obliged
to declare land that he has agreed to sell as his holding, as is the person
who is in possession or it through part performance or an agreement or ;.._,_
sale. Where that land Is surrendered as surplus both by the owner and the
party in possession of It, the provisions or section 11 become applicable
C and the land vests in the G<ivernment; bnt where the land is surrendered
by the party in possession of it through part performance or an agreement
or sale but it is not also surrendered by the owner, the provisions of
sub-section (4) of section 12 apply and the possession of the land must
revert to the owner. [184C-D]

D 1.2. Under section 12(4), the possession shall revert to the owner
subject to such rules as may be prescribed. The relevant rule in this behalf
is Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reform (Celling on Agricultural
Holdings) Rules, 1974. Sub-Rule (1) thereof states that where any land is
surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under the Act by, inter
E alia, a person in possession through part performance or a contract for
sale, the possession or such land shall, as soon as may be after a seasonal
crop on the land is harvested, revert to the owner, except in a ease where
the owner himself surrender such land as surplus under the provisions or
the Act, whereupon it shall vest in the Government free rrom all el!·
cumbrances. Sub-Rule (2) entitles the owner to apply to the Revenue
F Divisional Officer for being put in possession of the land Ir the party who
is in possession of it, inter alia, by virtue of part performance of a contract
for sale fails to deliver its possession to him. The Revenue Divisional
Officer is then obliged, after giving to the party in posstssioo an oppor·
tuoity of making a representation, to authorise an officer to take posses-
G sioo of the land and deliver it to the owner. [184E-G]

1.3. Therefore, having regard to the fact that sub-section (4) of
section 12 refers to such rules as may be prescribed and terms of the
prescribed rule, the land must revert to the owner. [184H, 18SAJ

H State of Andhra Pradesh v, Mohd. Ashrafuddin, (1982] 3 S.C.R. 482;
STATE OF A.P. v. LAKSHMI DEVI [BHARUCHA, J.] 181

Yedida Chakradhararao (dead) through his !..Rs. & Ors. etc. v. State of A
-----f. Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc., (1990) 2 S.C.R. 220, relied upon.

CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 3187-
3193 of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.89 of the Andhra Pradesh B
High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2388, 2391, 2428, 3345, 3418, 3425 and 3426
of 1988.

C. Sitaramiah, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. Pramila
and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellants. C
-· K. Madhava Reddy, B. Kanta Rao and B. Parthasarthy for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
BHARUCHA, J. These appeals raise an interesting question relating
to the interpretation of section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
'the said-Act') The appeals, by the State of Andhra Pradesh, are directed
against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court whereby he dismissed the revision petitions filed by E
the appellants against the order of the Andbra Pradesh Land Reforms

-
Appellate Tribunal directing the appellants to hand over possession of 294
acres of land to the respondents.

Briefly stated, these are the relevant facts :
F
The respondents entered into an agreement to sell the land in appeal,
admeasuring 294 acres, to M/s Challapalli Sugar Limited and in pursuance
thereof handed over possession of the said land to the said company. The
said company filed a declaration under the provisions of the said Act
declaring surplus land held by it, which included the said land. The G
respondents contended that since the title to the said land had not passed
to the said company they remained the owners thereof and were entitled
to the reversion of its possession to them under section 12(4) of the said
Act. The Primary Laad Tribunal held against the respondents but the
Appellate Tribunal and the High Court held in their favour. H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R.
A It is necessary to note the provisions of section 3(i) of the said Act
which defines "holding' to mean "the entire land held by a person as an
owner as a limited owner; as a usufructuary mortgagee; as a tenant; who
is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part
performance of a contract for the sale of land or otherwise ...........' section
B 12 of the said Act reads thus:

"12. Reversion and vesting of land surrendered :- Where any
land is surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered
under this Act by any usufructuary mortgagee or tenant, the
possession of such land shall subject so such rules as may be
c prescribed revert to the owner.

(2) The owner to whom the possession of the land reverts under
sub-section ( 1) from an usufructuary mortgagee shall be liable
to pay the mortgage money due to usufructuary mortgagee in
respect of that land with intere~t at the rate of six per cent per
D annum from the date of such revision, and the said land shall
continue to be the security for such payment.

(3) The owner to whom the possession of the land reverts under
sub-section (1) from a tenant shall be entitled to receive from
E the tenant rent due for the period ending with the last crop
harvested by such tenant.

(4) Where any land is surrendered or is deemded to have be:en
surrendered under this Act by any person in possession by
virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through a part
F performance .of contract for sale or otherwise, the possession
of such land shall subject to such rules as may be prescribed,
revert to the owner.

(5) The owner to whom the possession of the land reverts under
sub-section (4) shall be liable to discharge the. claim enforce-
G
able against the land by person in possess\on : and the land
surrendere.d shall if held as a security, c0ntinue to be the
security.

(5A) Where any land is surrendered or is deemed to have been
H surrendere_d,under thls Act by any limited owner, the posses·
STA1E OF AP. v. LAKSHMI DEVI [BHARUCHA, J.] 183

sion of such land shall, subject to such rules as may be A
prescribed; revert to the person having a vested interest in the
remainder and such person shall be liable to discharge the
claim enforceable against the land by the limited owner; and
the said land shall, if held as a security, continue to be the
security (Sub-section 5-A is added as per Amendment Act No.
10 of 1977).
B

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where
any land surrendered by an usufructuary mortgagee or a tenant
or a person in possession referred to sub-section (4), is also a
land surrendered by the owner, the provisions of section 11 C
shall apply.'

Section 11 states that where any land is surrendered or is deemed to
have been surrendered under the said Act by an owner, the Revenue
Divisional Officer may, subject to such rules as \Day be prescribed, by
order, take possession or authorise any officer to take possession of such D
land, which shall thereupon vest in the Government free from all en-
cumbrances from the date of such order. Section 10(5) entitles a Tribunal
to refuse to accept the surrender of any land in the circumstances therein
stated.
E
It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the
. Appellate Tribunal was in error in directing the appellants to hand over to
the respondents possession of the aforementioned 294 acres of land. In his
submission, there had been a surrender of the said land and the appellants
were under no obligation to return it to the respondents. F

Learned counsel for the respondents urged, on the other hand, that
the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder obliged the appellants to
hand back to respondents the possession of the said land and it was then
for the respondents to decide which particular part of their holding they
should surrender as surplus, if any, under the terms of the said Act. G

..L For our purposes what is relevant is that the said land was sur-
rendered as surplus by the said company, which was in possession of the
same by reason of part performance of an agreement of sale with the
respondents. Sub-section (4) of section 12 states that 'where any land is H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

A surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act by any
person in possession ............ through a part performance of contract for
sale ..... the possession of such land shal~ subject to such rules as may be
prescribed, revert to the owner". The exception that is made to this
requirement is set out in sub-section (I\) of Section 12 which states that it
B is only when land which is surrendered by the person in possession through
a part performance of contract for sale is also surrendered by its owner
that the provisions of section 11 shall apply, that is to say, it shall vest in
the Government.

It will be remembered that by reason of section 3(i) the owner is
c obliged to declare land that he has agreed to sell as his holding, as is the
person who is in possession of it through part performance of an agreement
of sale. Where that land is surrendered as surplus both by the owner and
the party in possession of it, the provisions of section 11 become applicable
and the land vests in the Government; but where the land is surrendered
D by the party in possossion of it through part performance of an agreement
of sale but it is not also surrendered by the owner, the provisions of
sub-section (4) of section 12 apply and the possession of the land must
revert to the owner.

E It will be noted that possession shall revert to the owner "subject to
such rules as may be prescribed". The relevant rule in this behalf is Rule
9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
Rules, 1974. Sub-rule (1) thereof states that where any land is surrendered
or is deemed to have been surrendered under the said Act by, inter alia, a
person in possession through part performance of a contract for sale, the
F possession of such land shall, as soon as may be after a seasonal crop on
the land is harvested, revert to the owner, except in a case where the owner
himself surrenders such land as surplus under the provisions of the Act,
whereupon it shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances.
Sub-rule (2) entitles the owner to apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer
G for being put in possession of the land if the party who is in possession of
it, inter a/ia, by virtue of part performance of a contract for sale fails to
deliver its possession to him. The Revenue Divisional Officer is than
obliged, after giving to the party in possession an opportunity of making a
representation, to authorise an officer to take possession of the land and
H deliver it to the owner. Having regard to the fact that sub-section (4) of
STATE OF AP. v. LAKSHMI DEVI [BHARUCHA J.] 185

section 12 refers to such rules as may be prescribed and terms of the A
prescribed rule, we are left in no doubt as to the correctness of the
interpretation that we have placed upon section 12.

We may mention that this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd.
Ashrafuddin, (1982] 3 SCR 482 and in Yedida Chakradhararao (dead)
through his LRs. & Ors. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc, (1990] B
2 S.C.R. 220 had indicated the same interpretation.

In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.

N.P.V.· Appeals dismissed.