Holding

Section 3(i) and its Explanation make clear that the same land can be counted in the holdings of both the owner and the purchaser/lessee when possession is transferred under part performance of a sale agreement.

Summary

The petitioners, owners of agricultural land, had sold portions of their holdings under agreements of sale and had delivered possession to the purchasers in part performance, but no conveyance deed was executed. The issue was whether such land could be excluded from the owners' "holding" under Section 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, or whether it must be counted in the holdings of both the owner‑vendor and the purchaser/lessee. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 3(i) and its Explanation, which expressly states that the same land may be held by one person in one capacity and by another in a different capacity and shall be included in the holdings of both. Relying on its earlier decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin and Begulla Bapi Raju, the Court held that land transferred under an agreement of sale and possessed by the purchaser is to be included in the holdings of both parties. Consequently, the appeal filed by the owners was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s view that the land remains part of the owners’ holding for ceiling‑calculation purposes.

Issues considered

The meaning of 'holding' under Section 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, especially when land is transferred under an agreement of sale and possession is delivered in part performance.
Whether land delivered to a purchaser in part performance of a sale agreement, without a registered conveyance, can be excluded from the seller's holding for the purpose of computing ceiling area.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973s. 12, s. 3(i), s. 3(m), s. 4, s. 5, s. 7, s. 8
Constitution of Indias. Article 31-A, s. Article 39
Transfer of Property Acts. 53A

Subjects

land reformsceiling on agricultural holdingsdefinition of holdingpart performance of saleagrarian legislationstatutory interpretationdual holdingpossession vs ownership

Judgment

YEDIDA CHAKRADHARARAO (DEAD) THROUGH HIS
L.RS. & ORS. ETC.
A
V.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

MARCH 29, 1990

B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ, B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA,
K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Hold-
ings) Act. 1973: S. 3(i}-Land sold under agreement/part performance
of agreement by delivery of possession-Such land whether could be
included in the holdings of owner/vendor as well as purchaser.
l
c
Sub-section (i) of s. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceil-
ing on Agricnltural Holdings) Act, 1973 defines the expression "hold-
ing" as meaning the entire land held by a person as an owner, a limited
owner, usufructuary mortgagee, a tenant and as one who is in posses-
D sion by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part . A. ..
performance of a contract of sale. The Explanation thereto states that .
where the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by
another person in any other capacity such land shall be included in the
holding of both such persons.

E The appellants/petitioners had alienated agricultural lands under
agreements of sale and the possession of these lands was delivered in
part performance of the said agreements but no conveyance of the said
lands had been executed till the relevant date. A question arose whether
such land could be excluded from the holding of the owner-vendor
within the meaning of the Act. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal
F found that the vendees alone were in possession and enjoyment of the
respective lands and, therefore, the appellants could not be said to be J
-
holding the said lands. The High Court held that the lands covered by
the agreements of sale have to be included in the holdings of the appel-
!ants as well.

G In these appeals and special.leave petitions filed by them it was
contended that use of the word 'held' in the definition in s. 3(i) indicates
that the person who is supposed to hold the land must necessarily be the
person in possession of the said land and hence where, in part perfor-
mance of 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 laud cannot '-f'
H any longer be regarded as holding the same, and that although the

220
Y. CHAKRADHARARAO v. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH 221

Explanation to sub-s.(i) of s.3 was very widely worded, its meaning
A
could not be so extended as to cover a case where the owner of the land
had parted with the possession thereof under an agreement creating a
right, legal or equitable, in the land concerned.

Dismissing the appeals and the special leave petitions, the Court,
B
HELD: 1. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is a piece.of agrarian legislation enac-
ted with a view to achieve a more equitable distribution of land for
common good and with a view to subserve the objectives enshrined in
Article 39 of the Constitution, being one of the Directive Principles
embodied in the Constitution. Provisions of such a legislation have to be
interpreted liberally and with a view to furthering the object of the c
legislation. [226B-CJ

2.1 The very language of sub-s.(i) of s.3 indicates that a person
can 'hold' land for the purposes of the Act as an owner, as a limited
owner, as a usufructuary mortgagee, as a tenant and as one who is in D
possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part
performance of a contract of sale. The Explanation thereto in plain
language states that the same land can be held by one 1>erson in one
capacity and by another person in a different ca1>acity and provides that
such land shall be included in the holdings of both such persons. The
Explanation thus clearly contemplates that the same land can be E
"held" as contemplated under sub-s. (i) by one person as the owner and
by another person as his lessee or as a person to wltom the owner has
delivered possession of the land in part performance of an agreement to
sell. It cannot, therefore, be said that only where the land is in posses-
sion of a person can that land be regarded as held by him. l226G-227B]
F
2.2 The Explanation to s. 3(i) was incorporated in the Andhra
Pradesh Land Reforms Act because the legislature took the view that,
but for such a drastic provision, it would not be possible to effectively
implement the provisions of the said Act regarding the acquisition and
distribution of the surplus land to the landless and other deserving
persons. If the legislature has used language ins. 3(i) and the Explana- G
tion thereto which on a plain reading shows that in case of land covered
under an agreement for sale or an agreement of lease, even though the
purchaser or the lessee might be in possession of the land, it would be
included in the holdings of both of the purchaser as well as the owner or
the lessee and the owner, there is no reason to cut down the plain
meaning of the language employed in that provision. T230B, C-D] H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, [1982] 3 SCR
A 482 applied; Begulla Bapi Raju etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc.
etc., [1983] 3 SCR 701 referred to.

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. &
Anr. v. The Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., [1961] I SCR 902.
B distinguished.

The Authorised Officer (LR), Vijayawada v. Kalyanam China
Venkata Narasayya, [1978] l A.P. Law Journal 98 overruled.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3388
of 1984. etc.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1989 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. No. 1450 of 1981.

A.K. Sen, C. Sitaramiah, P.A. Chandhary, K. Jagannatha Rao,
D P.R. Ramachandra Murthy, Mrs. Anjani, K. Ram Kumar, Y.P. Rao,
P.S.R. Murhty, B. Kanta Rao, N.D.B. Raju, R.N. Keshwani, R.F.
Nariman, Raj Kumar Gupta, P.C. Kapur, Rajendra Chaudhary,
A. Sobba Rao, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao, A.T.M. Sampath, P.N.
Ramalingam, R. Venkatramani, G. Narasimhulu, G.N. Rao and S.K.
Sucharita for the Appellants.
E
K. Parasaran, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Manjula
Gupta and V. Sekhar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F KANIA, J. This is a group of matters comprising Civil Appeal
No. 3388 of 1984 in this Court and other cases which have been placed
before us for hearing along with this appeal. We propose to deal first
with Civil Appeal No. 3388 of !984. -.------
This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the
G Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1450 of
1981. The question involved in the appeal before the High Court from
which this appeal arises was whether land which has been agreed to be
sold by the owner under an agreement of sale and possession of which
was delivered in part performance of the agreement for sale but
pursuant to which no conveyance had been executed till the relevant
H date, could be included both in the holding of the owner-vendor as
Y. CHAKRADHARARAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [KANIA, J.] 223

well as the purchaser or whether it was liable to be included only in the
holding of the purchaser for the purposes of the Andhra Pradesh Land A
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the said Act').

There are a number of connected matters where the same ques-
tion is involved and which have been placed for hearing before us. In B
some of these cases, a part of the consideration has been paid and in a
few others, the entire consideration has been paid. It has also been
alleged that the possession of the land was transferred to the purchaser
pursuant to the agreements of sale referred to. In some of these cases,
lands belonging to the owners have been given on lease to tenants who
are in possession thereof as lessees.
c
In order to appreciate the controversy arising before us, it is
necessary to bear in mind the relevant provisions of the said Act.
Before the said Act was enacted, there was in force in Andhra Pradesh
an Act entitled Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
Act, 1961 which provided for the imposition of a ceiling on holdings of D
agri~ultural land. After that Act had been in force for some time, the
Central Committee on Land Reforms made certain rec0mmendations
regarding the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings and in line
with this proposed policy, the said Act was enacted in 1973 to bring
about comprehensive legislation for the imposition of ceiling on
agricultural holdings in the State of Andhra Pradesh and with a view to E
replace the aforesaid Act of 1961 as well as Andhra Pradesh Agri-
cultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation Act, 1972). The object of the
legislation was to take over the lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed
and to distribute the same among landless and other deserving persons
to subserve the common good. The said Act was included in the Ninth
Schedule to the Constitution at Item 67 by the Constitution 34th F
(Amendment) Act and was protected under Article 31-A. The object
of the said Act was agrarian reform. Under sub-section (c) of section 3
of the said Act 'ceiling area' is defined as under:

"3(c): 'ceiling area' means the extent of land specified in
section 4 or section 4-A to be ceiling area." G

It may be mentioned .here that the agricultural land was classified into
wet land, dry land and so on and appropriate areas were fixed as
ceiling in respect of such lands taking into account the nature and yield
capacity of the lands in question. Section 3(i) runs as follows:
H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

"3(i): 'holding' means the entire land held by a person-
A
(i) as an owner;

(ii) as a limited owner;

B (iii) as an usufructuary mortgagee;

(iv) as a tenant;

(v). 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; or in one or
c more of such capacities; and the expression 'to hold
land' shall be construed accordingly;

Explanation: Where the same land is held by one person in ,A. __
one capacity and by another person in any other capacity, such
D land shall be included in the holding of both such persons."

Section 3(m),provides that "notified date" means the date notified
under sub-section (3) of section 1 on which the said Act came into
force. It may be mentioned that the notified date in respect of the said
Act is 1.1.1975. Very briefly stated, under section 4, the ceiling area in
E the ·case of a family unit consisting of not more than five members was
prescribed as one standard holding. Where the family consisted of
more than five members, there was, broadly speaking, a proportionate
increase in the ceiling area. Under section 5, the standard holding is
fixed taking into account the classification of the land according to the
nature of the land. Sub-section (1) of section 7 runs as follows: _>
F
"7(1). Special provision in respect of certain transfers, etc.
already made: --
Where on or after the 24th January, 1971 but before the
notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of
G sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement,
surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, any land
held by him or created a trust of any land held by him, then
the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust
has not been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to
avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a
H reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on
Y. CHAKRADHARARAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [KANIA, J.] 225

such person, and where he has not so proved, such transfer
or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of A
~~
the computation of the ceiling area of such person."
'

Very briefly stated, sub-section (2) of section 7 provides inter a/ia
that any alienation made. by way of sale, lease for a period exceeding
six years, gift, exchange, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise as set out B
in the said sub-section on or after 2nd May, 1972 and before the
notified date in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural
Land (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 shall be null and void. The
) other sub-sections also provide that in the various other circumstances
/
set out therein alienations made will be disregarded for purposes of
fixation of ceiling.
c
Section 8 provides, in brief, that every person whose holding on
the notifi<;d date together with any land transferred by him on or after
24th January, 1971 exceeds the specified limits, shall within 30 days
-~
from the notified date, namely 1.1.1975 or such extended period as the
Government may notify in that behalf furnish a declaration in.respect D
of his holding to the competent Tribunal.

Section 9 deals with determination of the ceiling area by the
Tribunal constituted under Section 6. Section 10 deals with the surren-
der of lands in certain cases. Sub-section (5) of the said section pro-
vides that it shall be open to the. Tribunal to refuse to accept the E
___.>.."
surrender of any land as contemplated under sub-section (1) or
deemed surrender of land as contemplated under sub-section (4) of the
said section in the circumstances set out in sub-section (5). Section 11
deals with the vesting of surrendered lands.
t.__
Section 12 deals with revision and vesting of lands surrendered. F
The opening part of that section provides that where any land is sur-
rendered or deemed to have been surrendered under the said Act by
any usufructuary mortgagee or a tenant, the possession of such land
shall, subject to such rules, as may be prescribed, revert to the owner.
Sub-section (4) of section 12 provides that where any land is surren-
dered or is deemed to have been surrendered under the said Act by G
any person in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or
through a part performance of contract for sale or otherwise the pos-

"'. session of such land shall subject to such rules as may be prescribed,
revert to the owner. Sub-section (5-A) make an analogous provision in
connection with lands surrendered by limited owners and provides that
such surrendered lands shall revert to the person having a vested H
interest in the remainder.
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

Section 13 makes special provision for the exclusion from the
A
holding of the owner of land belonging to him held by a protected
tenant where such land or part thereof stands transferred to the pro-
tected tenant under Section 38A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana
Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950.

B Before going into the merits of the contentions urged and consi-
dering the proper interpretation to be given to the relevant sections of
the said Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the said Act is a piece
of agrarian legislation enacted with a view to achieve a more equitable
distribution of lands for common good and with a view to subserve the
objectives enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution; being one of the
Directive Principles embodied in the Constitution. Provisions of such a
•
c legislation have to be interpreted liberally and with a view to further-
ing the object of the legislation and not with a view to defeat the same
in a strict and constricted manner in which a taxing law, for instance,
might be interpreted.

D The main submission of learned counsel for the 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 is
supposed to hold the land, must necessarily be the person in posses-
E sion of the said land; and hence where, in part performance of an .L
agreement for sale or under a lease, the purchaser or lessee has been
put i.n possession of any land, the owner of the said land cannot any
longer 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 >
F 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 possession
of the land and has parted with the possession thereof under an agree- ~ .
ment 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 person
G can be said to "hold" land for the purposes of 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 very language of y
sub-section (i) of section 3 indicates that land can be held as contemp-
lated in the said sub-section by persons in a number of capacities. The
H Explanation in plain language states that the same land can be held by
Y. CHAKRADHARARAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [KANIA, J.] 227

one person in one capacity and by another person in a different capa-
city and provides that such land shall be included in the holdings of A
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 in part
performance of an agreement to sell. On a plain reading of the B
language used in the Explanation, we find it that it is not possible to
accept the .submission that only where the '!and is in possession of a
person can that land be regarded as held by him.

Apart from what we have pointed out earlier we find that the
question which arises before us in this appeal is already covered by the
decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafud- c
din, [ 1982] 3 SCR 482. The facts of the case were that out of the total
holding of his land the respondent transferred some land to another
person under two unregistered sale deeds pursuant to an agreement
for sale and gifted away some land to his son. In the return submitted
by him under the said Act the respondent did not include in his holding D
the area transferred under the unregistered sale deeds or the land
gifted by him which was in the possession of the purchaser and donee
respectively. The Land Reforms Tribunal ignoring the two transfers
computed his holding at 1. 7692 standard holding and called upon him
to surrender land equivalent to 0.7692 standard holding. In revision,
the High Court held that the land transferred under the two sale deeds E
could not be included in the holding of the respondent for ascertaining
the ceiling area. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court gave the
benefit of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the person in
possession of the plot pursuant to the contract for sale and treated the
land as a part of his holding. On appeal to this court, a Division Bench
comprising three learned Judges of this Court reversed the decision of F
the High Court and held that the High Court was in error in holding
that the land in the possession of the transferee cannot be taken to be a
part of the holding of the respondent. It was held by this Court that the
expression "held" connotes both ownership as well as possession. In
the context of the definition it is not possible to interpret the term
"holding" only in the sense of possession. The Explanation to the G
definition of the term "holding" clearly contemplates that the same
land can be the holding of two different persons holding the land in
different capacities, (See page 486). The Court went on to state that:

"It is by now well settled that a person in possession
pursuant to a contract for sale does not get title to the land H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

unless there is a valid document of title in his favour. In tne
A
instant case it has already been pointed out that the trans-
feree came into possession in pursuance of an agreement
for sale but no valid deed of title was executed in his
favour. Therefore, the ownership remained with the
respondent-transferor. But even in the absence of a valid
'.B deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of
transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is
entitled to remain in possession"

The Court went on to observe that:

"There may conceivably be cases where the same land is
'C included in holding of two persons in different capacities
and serious prejudice might be caused to one or both of
them if they were asked to surrender the excess area. To
safeguard the interest of the owners in such a case the
legislature has made a provision in section 12(4) and (5) of
D the Act. Even so there might be cases where some pre-
judice might be caused to some tenure holders."

The Court further observed that:

"But if the definition of the term 'holding' is couched in
E clear and unambiguous language the court has to accept it
as it stands. So construed the same land can be a part of the
holding of various persons holding it in different capacities.
When the terms of the definition are clear and unam-
biguous there is no question of taking extraneous aid for
construing it." >
F
The correctness of this decision has been upheld by this court in
Begu//a Bapi Raju etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc. etc., [1983] 3
SCR 701 at p. 717. In that case one of the contentions urged on behalf
of the petitioners was that land transferred by the petitioners under
various transfer deeds to the outsiders and who came in possession
G also could not be included in the holding of the petitioners. This argu-
ment was negatived by a Bench comprising three learned Judges of this
Court, which followed the decision of this Court in Mohd. Ashrafud-
din's case (supra), and did not accept the plea that the decision in that
case required reconsideration.

H The question raised for our determination in this appeal is
Y. CHAKRADHARARAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [KANIA, J.] 229

~
directly covered against the appeHant by the decisions of this Court in
A
two cases just referred to by us. In these circumstances, even assuming
that there is another equally plausible view regarding the construction
and the legal effect of section 3(i) of the said Act read with Explana-
tion, that would not necessarily justify our reconsidering the question
which has already been decided by this Court, although the decision
was rendered by a Bench comprising only three learned Judges of this B
Court. In our opinion, unless we find that the decisions in the
aforesaid cases are erroneous, it would not be proper on our part to
reconsider the same. Apart from this, as we have pointed out earlier,
) in our view, considering the clear language of section 3(i) of the said
Act read with Explanation to that section, the view taken in Mohd.
Ashrafuddin's case (supra) is, with respect, the correct view, and we
are inclined to take the same view on the construction and legal effect
c
of that provision.

~
Learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on
the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
The Authorised Officer (LR), Vijayawada v. Kalyanam China Venkata D
Narasayya, (1978] 1 A.P. Law Journal 98. In that case a Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court took the view that, if the
owner of the land has put the transferee in possession of the land in
part performance of a contract for sale, such land can be included only
in the holding of the transferee and cannot simultaneously be com-
puted in the holding of the transferor as well, for that land is not E
----" ' "held" by him as an "owner". It could be included in the holding of
the transferor only as and when the transferee surrenders that fand and
that land reverts to the transferor as provided under section 12 of the
said Act. The Division Bench also took. the view that the expression
"holding" and the expression "held by a person" occurring in section
L
3(i) of the said Act must be construed as taking in the idea of actual F

--
possession and not merely any right, title or interest in the land devoid
of actual possession. In our view, this decision cannot be regarded as
laying down good law and must be treated as overruled by the deci-
sions of this Court in Mohd. Ashrafuddin's case (supra) and Begu/la
Bapi Raju's case (supra). We cannot lose sight of the fact that the said
Act is a piece of agrarian reform legislation passed with a view to G
effectively fix a ceiling on agricultural holdings and to achieve equit-
able distribution of surplus land among the landless and the other
deserving persons. The plain language of section 3(i) read with Expla-
~ nation supports the view taken by this Court in Mohd. Ashrafuddin's
case (supra). It is true that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the aforesaid judgment has given certain examples H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

where the interpretation which has been given in Mohd. Ashrafuddin's
A
case (supra), might lead to some hardship. That, however, in our
opinion, cannot justify restricting the effect of the plain language of
the relevant provisions in the manner done by the Division Bench of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Explanation to section 3(i) was
incorporated in the said Act because the legislature took the view that,
B but for such a drastic provision, it would not be possible to effectively
implement the provisions of the said Act regarding the acquisition of
surplus land and distribution of the surplus land to the landless and the
other deserving persons. It is a notorious fact that there were a large
number of cases where agreements for sale or documents for lease in
respect of excess lands were executed by owners of lands in excess of
the ceiling area with a view to defeat the provisions of the said Act. In
c fact, a perusal of the facts in the cases before us generally lends sup-
port to the existence of such a situation. In these circumstances, if the
legislature has used language in section 3(i) and the Explanation
thereto which, on a plain reading, shows that in case of land covered
under an agreement for sale or an agreement of lease, even though the
D purchaser or the lessee might be in possession of the land, it would be
included in the holdings of both of the purchaser as well as the owner·
or the lessee and the owner, we see no reason to cut down the plain
meaning of the language employed in that provision, merely because
that it might possibly result in hardship in few cases. Moreover we find
that, to some extent, the legislature has tried to mitigate this hardship I
E by providing that, if the purchaser under the agreement of sale or the .L
lessee has in his holding land in excess of the ceiling area, such excess
would revert to the owner of the land. If the interpretation sought to
be put by learned counsel for the appellants, which finds support from
the aforementioned decisioq of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, were
correct, we fail to see why such a provision as aforestated for reversion
F of excess land to the owner should have been made.

It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that if the - - -
construction placed on the said provisions by the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid
judg·ment was accepted, it is not as if the object of the said legislation
G would be defeated because where an agreement for sale or agreeI"ent
of lease cannot be shown to be bona fide, the land would be included in
the holding of the owner. This circumstance. however. is of a little
avail. Where such agreements for sale or of lease are executed in "I
writing and possession is handed over to the purchaser or the lessee, it
would be very difficult to show that the transaction was not bona fide
H although the agreement might well have been executed really with a·
Y.CHAKRADHARARAOv.STATEOFANDHRAPRADESH (KANIA, J.] 231

~
view to defeat the provisions of the said Act. We cannot lose sight of
the fact that section 3(i) and the Explenation only deals with cases A
where the transfer of ownership is not complete and the owner does
not part completely with his legal interest in the land, so that on the
termination of the agreement for sale or agreement of lease without
any document being registered, the land would fully revert to the
owner. Moreover, in many cases, it was found that the owner of the B
land himself continued to cultivate the land claiming that he was doing
so on behalf of his son who was the lessee or the purchaser under an
'I agreement. In these circumstances, we fail to see any reason to cut
·~
down the plain meaning of the provisions of section 3(i) and the Expla-
nation thereto.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the c
definition of the word 'holding' contained in sub-section (i) of section 3
was an exhaustive definition and that definition contained in the main
.>- section could not be interpreted in the light of the Explanation
thereto. It was submitted by him that the meaning of the term 'holding'
and 'held' in sub-section (i) of section 3 could not be governed by the D
Explanation. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on a
decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co.
of India Ltd. & Anr. v. The Commercial. Tax Officer and Others,
[ 1961) l SCR 902 at pp. 914-917. In our opinion, this decision is hardly
of any assistance in the matter before us. It is well settled that the
.........·--... provisions in an Act have to be read harmoniously and in the light of E
the context in which they occur. In our opinion, there can be no
quarrel with the reliance being placed on the Explanation in order to
understand the meaning of the term "holding" and "held" used in
sub-section (i) of section 3 of the said Act. Although some other deci-
... sions have been referred to us, we do not think any useful purpose
would be served by discussing the same in view of what we have F
observed earlier, nor would it serve any purpose to refer to the various
.. ,.... examples of ownership set out in the American Jurisprudence to which
our attention was drawn.

In the result, in our opinion, there is no merit in the appeal and
the same must fail and is dismissed. Looking to the facts and circum- G
stances of the case, we, however, direct that there will be no order as
to costs of the appeal.

"" The other connected Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions
have all been directed to be tagged with the aforesaid Civil Appeal
disposed of by us as they involve the same points as raised in the said H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORT' [ 1990) 2 S.C.R.

A Civil Appeal. Following our decision, the said Civil Appeals and the
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

In view of the dismissal of all the Appeals and Special Leave
Petitions, the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions therein do not survive and
all are dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are
B vacated.
Appeals and
P.S.S Petitions dismissed.