STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC. versus M. LAKSHMI DEVI ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 13-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
M. LAKSHMI DEVI ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 13, 1993 
(LAUT MOHAN SHARMA. CJ AND S. MOHAN AND 
S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
____..; 
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilng on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 
. -J.. .. 
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 
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 
Petitions of the. State were dismissed by the High Court. 
In the appeals before this .. Court, on behalf of the State-appellants, 
F 
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 A

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