SMT. SREELATHA BHUPAL ETC. ETC. versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 28-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SMT. SREELATHA BHUPAL ETC. ETC. 
v. 
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS 
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD 
AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.) 
Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961: ss. 
7, 8, JO & 19-Surplus land-Surrender of-Compensation deter-
mined-Revision of-Whether beyond jurisdiction. 
Sub-clause (2) of s. 7 of the Andt:a Pradesh Ceiling on Agri-
cultural Holdings Act, 1961 mandates the Revenue Divisional Officer to 
serve a notice on every person liable to surrender land in excess of the 
ceiling area requiring him to file a statement indicating the land which 
he proposes to surrender. Sub-clause (3) requires the Revenue Divi-
sional Officer to pass orders on that statement approving the surrender, 
and the said land shall thereupon be deemed to have been surrendered. 
Section 8 provides for the Revenue Divisional Officer to take over such 
land on payment of compensation under s. IO. Section IO lays down the 
mode of compensation. 
In the instant case, proceedings under s. 7(3) of the Act in respect 
of appellant's land having concluded the Revenue Divisional Officer 
had .made an order under s. IO fixing the compensation. The District 
Revenue Officer however instead of making the payment, issued a 
notice, purporting to be under s. 19(1), as amended, proposing to revise 
F 
the said order. 
The appellant filed a writ petition contending that when the pro-
ceedings are concluded under sub-clause (3) of s. 7 the surrender is 
complete and the land vests in the State, that what remains under the 
scheme of s. IO is only the question of determining compensation, and 
G 
once that is determined the authorities have no jurisdiction to revise the 
compensation. 
On behalf of the State it was contended that cl. (3) of s. 7 uses the 
words "deemed to have been surrendered" which indicates that 
although by an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer the 
H 
proposal about the surrender of land is finalised but still it is only 
314 
SMT. S. BHUPAL v. GOVT. OF.A.P. 
315 
deemed surrender, and that the land only vests in the State when it is 
taken over after payment of compensation in accordance withs. 8. 
The High Court took the view that unless taking over is completed 
under s. 8 the land does not vest in the State and, therefore, it .could not 
be said that the proceedings uuder the Act had come to an end and at 
this stage if the authorities have jurisdiction to revise the compensation 
it could not he said that the authorities have done something beyond 
their jurisdiction. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: The scheme of s. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on 
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 indicates that the surplus land which a 
holder will surrender is finally determined when an order under ti. (3) 
is passed. However, in spite of the finality of these proceedings the 
legislature instead of using the phrase "have been surrendered" in the 
said clause uses the term "deemed to have been surrendered." It is 
clear from these words that something more remains to he done, and 
. that is what is provided in s. 8 hy authorising the Revenue Divisional 
Officer to_~ake over the land, which is deemed to have been surrendered, 
on payment of compensation determined under s. IO. It is only after this 
taking over that the land vests in the State. [3I9G; 320A; 320C-D] 
It is, therefore, apparent that orders under s. 8 can only he passed 
after compensation as determined under s. IO is paid, and so far action 
under s. 8 has not been taken it could not he said that the land vests in 
the State. The competent authorities can revise the orders passed under 
s. IO if an amendment has taken place in between. l32IH; 32IB] 
In the instant case, action under s. 8 had not been taken. The High 
Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the writ petitions. [32IH; 3228] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1147 
of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28. 12. 1973 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 4818 of 1973. With Civil Appeal Nos. 
1054-55 of 1976, 1503 and 1546 of 1977 
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, C. Sitaramiah, K. Madhava Reddy, 
Chella Sitaramani, K. Ram Kumar, Mrs. J. Ramachandran, Mrs. 
Anjani, TVSN Chari, A.V. Rangam, Jagan Rao and A.V.V. Nair for 
the appearing parties. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.