STATE OF A.P. versus SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1104 · Decided: 23-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 c 
Holdings) Act, 1973 - s.3(i}, clause (i) to (v) - Surrender of 
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 
F 
Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) 
~ 
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 
c 
declarant held an extent of 0.9170 standard holdings in 
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 
G Holdings) Act, 1973 set out the various capacities in which 
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 
H or through part performance of a contract of sale". The 
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 c 
land be regarded as held by him. [Para 6] [1109-G; 
.• 
1110-A, B, C, D] 

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