BEGULLA BAPI RAJU ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 23-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

701 
BEGULLA BAPI RAJU ETC. ETC. 
•• 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC. 
August 23, 1983 
[A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R. B. MISRA JJ.J 
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 
1973, Section 3(/), definition of family unit-Whether the term ''mi~or sons" 
would include a "separated minor son" long before the coming into force of the 
Act and whether the lands transferred by ·such separated minor sons to third 
parties by separate sale deeds would also for"! part. of a holding for the purposes 
of Sections 3(/), 3(o), 4, 5(3), 5(4), 7, Explanations I and II to Section 8 and 
/~Whether to answer in the affirmative and holding so would be· in violation of 
Articles 14 aiid 21 of the Constitution-Whether a new plea not taken before the 
High Court would be allowed to be taken for the first time in the Supreme Court 
and a petitioner be given liberty to produce a document in future. 
The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) 
ACt, 1973 was enacted on January 1, 1973. Soon after, its constitutional vali-
dity was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on various grounds 
but a Full Bench of the said High Court negatived the same on 11th of April 
1973. Therefcire, the Act was prought into force on January l, 1975 by virtue 
of a notification issued by the State Government. 
The three petitioners in SLP 6794/1978 filed separate declarations in 
accordance with Section 8 of the Act on the footing that the minor sons sepa-
rated long before the enactment or enforcement of the Act did not constitute 
a "family unit" and their holdings cannot be tagged with the holding of the 
father and that land transferred to oµtsiders long before the enactment either 
under agreement to sale or under gift deed should not be included in the 
holding of the petitioners. The Land Reform.s Tribunal, Kovvur rejected the 
said pleas and on September 27, 1976 declared that the 'family unit' was in 
possession of excess land over the ceiling limit. The appeal Preferred before 
the -Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was allowed in part. The revision 
petition filed before the High Court was dismissed on .the 7th of July 1978 and 
hence the Special Leave petitions to appeal. 
, 
During the pendency of the revision petition in the High Court the 
Andhra Pradesh ~Hing on Agric;ultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1977 was 
enacted with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1975 which introduced 
Section 4A among other provisions. The constitution3.I validity of the Amend-
ment) Act was challenged on the grounds, namely, the State Act is void and 
inoperative by reason of enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 
A.~t! 1976 \Central Act) and ~h;i~ the <:Jefinition of •familr unit' was violativ~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E, 
F 
G 
H 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983) 3 S.C.R, 
of Article 14 of the constitution .. This Court upheld the validity of the Act in · 
Tumati Venkaish v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc., [1980) 3 SCR 1143. 
In .the Special Leave petitions under consideration the following 
·-f 
contentions were raised : 
t. 
A separated minor son is not a member of the 'family unit' 
and, therefore, his property cannot be tagged with that of his 
father •. 
2. 
Some of the plots fall in drought-prone area and, therefore, 
the petitioner should have got an advantage of twelve and a 
half per cent. 
3. 
The definition of family unit under S. 3(f) as interpreted by the 
High Court is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
4. 
t and transferred by the petitioners under 
v~rious transfer 
deeds to outsiders and who canie in possession also could not be· 
included in' the holding of the petitioners .. · 
· 
5. 
(a) Section 3(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Act coupled with 
explanation thereto being destructive of Article 21 of the 
Constitution is , violative of the basic structure of the 
C_onstitution. 
(b) Life and livelihi;>od go together and, therefore, deprivation 
of the minors of thi land is hit by Article 21 of the Consti-
tution which contemplates not only a mere existence but 
living with dignity. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD : l. There is no infirmity in any of the provisions of the 
Andhra Pradesh Land reforms (Ceiling on ·Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. 
All the·Contendons raised are rio longef res integra, since they are covered by 
earlier decisions of this Court. [718 F] 
/ 
2:1. From a reading of sections 3(£), 3(o), 4, 5(3), 5(4),

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.