LexYEDIDA CHAKRADHARARAO (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A YEDIDA CHAKRADHARARAO (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. & ORS. ETC. 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 c included in the holdings of owner/vendor as well as purchaser. 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 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 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 H any longer be regarded as holding the same, and that although the 220 l . A. .. - J '-f' Y. CHAKRADHARARAO v. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH 221 Explanation to sub-s.(i) of s.3 was very widely worded, its meaning 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, 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 legislation. [226B-CJ 2.1 The very language of sub-s.(i) of s.3 indicates that a person A B c 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] 2.2 The Explanation to s. 3(i) was incorporated in the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act because the legislature took the view that, F but for such a drastic provision, it would not be possible to effectively implement the provisions of the said Act regarding the acquisitio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.