# '. " • • • .H TUMATI VENKAISH ETC. ETC v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - **Citation:** [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1143 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1980-05-09 - **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, P. N. Bhagwati, V. R. Krishna Iyer, V. D. Tulzapurkar, A P. Sen - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/h-tumati-venkaish-etc-etc-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-7955 - **Pages:** 16 ## Headnote The Atu/hra P;adesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act I of 1913, as aniended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms. (Ceiling on Agricuiturnl floldings) Amendment Act, 1977-Section. 4A Constitutional validity of-Whether, by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulatiou) Act 1976 (Central Act), the Andhra Pradesh Act had be· con1e void and inoperative. as being outside the legilslative competence of the A 11dhra Pradesh Legislature-Resolutions dated 7th April 1972 and 8th April 1972 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council and the Andhra Pra~ desh Legislatil'e Assembly under Art. 252 ( 1) of the Constitution. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act I of 1973 wa's enacted 011 !st of January 1973. Though a Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh when challenged by some of the land holders held! by its judgment dated I Ith April, 1973, the Act to be constitu· tionally valid; yet the· said Act was not brought into force till 1st January 1975. In 1977, the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1st January 1975 by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act · 1977. As soon as the Amending Act was pa'ssed, the land holders once again filed writ petitions in the High Court, challenging· the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The main ground, inter alia, was that by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Central Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Act had become void and inoperative. A Full Bench of five Judges of the High Court held that the enactment of A B c D E the Central Act did not have the effect of invalidating the whole of the F Andhra Pradesh Act, but since· the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act were repugnant to the provision's of the Central Act so far as ·concerned land satisfying both the definition of "land" in the Andhra Pradesh Act and the :iefini.tion Of "vacant land", in the 1 central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Act was held oot applicable to "vacant lands" falling within, the ambit of the Central Act. Save for this limited relief, the High Court dismissed the Wit petitions in all other respects. Hence the appeals by the land holders after obtaining G special leave· from this Court. Writ Petitions were also filed directly in this Court by ·:some of the land holders. J)ismissing the appeals, and writ petitions, the Court HELD : 1 .. Article 246 of the Constitution of India carves out an exception derogating from t'he normal distriblltion of legislative powers between the Union and the States. The effect of passing of resolutions by the Houses of H Legislature of two Or more State"s under this constitutional provision is that Parliament which has otherwise no power to legislate with respect to a matter, I A B c .D 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 s.C.R. except as provided in Articles 249 and 250, becomes entitled to legislate with regard to such matter and the State Legislature passing the resolutions cease- to have power to make law relating to that matter. The resolutions operate as abdication or surrender of the powers of the State Legislatures with respect to the matter which is the subject of the resolutions and such matter is placed entirely in the hands of Parliament and Parliament alone can then legislate with respect to each. It is as if ·such matter is lifted out of list II and placed in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. A plain natural construction of the language of Clauses (!) and (2) of Article 252 makes this position clear. It was in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 352 that a resolution was passed by the Andhra Prade'sh Legislative Council on 7th April, 1972 to the effect that "the imposition of ceiling of urban immovable property and acquisition of. such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters concerned therewith or ancilliary and incidental ·thereto should be regulated in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Parliam ## Text _Characters 0–39,685 of 43,300. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39685 for what follows._ '. " • • • .H TUMATI VENKAISH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH . May 9, 1980 1143 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD,' C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND A P. SEN, JJ.] The Atu/hra P;adesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act I of 1913, as aniended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms. (Ceiling on Agricuiturnl floldings) Amendment Act, 1977-Section. 4A Constitutional validity of-Whether, by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulatiou) Act 1976 (Central Act), the Andhra Pradesh Act had be· con1e void and inoperative. as being outside the legilslative competence of the A 11dhra Pradesh Legislature-Resolutions dated 7th April 1972 and 8th April 1972 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council and the Andhra Pra~ desh Legislatil'e Assembly under Art. 252 ( 1) of the Constitution. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act I of 1973 wa's enacted 011 !st of January 1973. Though a Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh when challenged by some of the land holders held! by its judgment dated I Ith April, 1973, the Act to be constitu· tionally valid; yet the· said Act was not brought into force till 1st January 1975. In 1977, the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1st January 1975 by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act · 1977. As soon as the Amending Act was pa'ssed, the land holders once again filed writ petitions in the High Court, challenging· the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The main ground, inter alia, was that by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Central Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Act had become void and inoperative. A Full Bench of five Judges of the High Court held that the enactment of A B c D E the Central Act did not have the effect of invalidating the whole of the F Andhra Pradesh Act, but since· the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act were repugnant to the provision's of the Central Act so far as ·concerned land satisfying both the definition of "land" in the Andhra Pradesh Act and the :iefini.tion Of "vacant land", in the 1 central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Act was held oot applicable to "vacant lands" falling within, the ambit of the Central Act. Save for this limited relief, the High Court dismissed the Wit petitions in all other respects. Hence the appeals by the land holders after obtaining G special leave· from this Court. Writ Petitions were also filed directly in this Court by ·:some of the land holders. J)ismissing the appeals, and writ petitions, the Court HELD : 1 .. Article 246 of the Constitution of India carves out an exception derogating from t'he normal distriblltion of legislative powers between the Union and the States. The effect of passing of resolutions by the Houses of H Legislature of two Or more State"s under this constitutional provision is that Parliament which has otherwise no power to legislate with respect to a matter, I A B c .D 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 s.C.R. except as provided in Articles 249 and 250, becomes entitled to legislate with regard to such matter and the State Legislature passing the resolutions cease- to have power to make law relating to that matter. The resolutions operate as abdication or surrender of the powers of the State Legislatures with respect to the matter which is the subject of the resolutions and such matter is placed entirely in the hands of Parliament and Parliament alone can then legislate with respect to each. It is as if ·such matter is lifted out of list II and placed in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. A plain natural construction of the language of Clauses (!) and (2) of Article 252 makes this position clear. It was in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 352 that a resolution was passed by the Andhra Prade'sh Legislative Council on 7th April, 1972 to the effect that "the imposition of ceiling of urban immovable property and acquisition of. such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters concerned therewith or ancilliary and incidental ·thereto should be regulated in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Parliament by law" and on identical resolution in the same terms was passed on the next day by the Andhra Pradesh LegfsJative Assembly. The result was that at the date when the Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, Parliament alone was competent to legislate with respect to ceiling on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in exces·s of the ciling and all connected, ancilHary or incidental matters, and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature stood denuded of its power to legislate on that subject. [1149 A, E-H, 1150 A-C] Union of India v. V. B. Choudhary, [1979] 3 SCR 802; followed. 2. Under the powers thus transfeired Parliament enacted the Central Act with a view to imposing ceiling on vacant land, other tnan land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration. The Central Act ·imposes a ceiling on holding of land in urban agglomeration other than land E Which i's mainly used for the purpose of agriculture and agriculture in this connection includes horticulture, but does not include raising of grass, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding live-stock and such cultivation or the grow· ing of such plants as maY be prescribed by the Rules, and, moreover, in order to fall within the exclusion, the land must be entered in the revenue er land record before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture and must also not have been ·specified in rhe master plan for a purpose other than agri· F culture. tl159 C-F] G 3. It is no doubt true that if the And.bra Pradesh Act seeks to impose ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration, it would be outside t"hc area of its legislative competence, because it cannot provide for imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property. But the only urban agglomerations in the State of Andhra Pradesh recognised in the Central Act were those referred to in Section 2(n) (A) (i) end there can be no doubt that so far as these urban agglomerations are concerned, it \\US not within the legislative compe· tence of· the And.bra Pradesh Legislature to provide for imposition of ceiling on land situate within these urban agglomerations. But, the Andhra Pradesh Act is not out side the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legisla· tive in so far as lands situate in the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh are concerned. ·Any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh with a population of more than one lakh could be notified as an urban agglemeH ration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the Central Act but until it is so notified it would not be an urban agglomeration and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would have legislative competence to provide for imposition of ceilin& on ( • • ~ • • TUMATI VENKAISH V. A. P. 1145 land situate within such area. No "SOOner such area is notified to be an urbari agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to land situate within such area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would conL tinue ro .be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land. The /' Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with reference to this- date that the surplus holding of land in excess of the ceiling "rea was required to be determined and if there was any surplus it was ro be surrendered to the State Government. Therefore, in an area other than that comprised in the urban agglometations referted to in section 2 (n)(A) (i), land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area would be lieble ro be determined as on !st January 1975 under fhe Aildhra Pradesh Act and only land within the ceiling area will be allowed to remain with him. It is only • • • • in respect of land remaining with a person whether an individual or a family ' after the operation of the Andhra Pradesh Act, thar the Central Act would apply if and when the area in question is notified to. be an urban agglomera- , · tion under section 2(n) (A) (il) of the Central Act. [1155 G-H, 1156 A-G] Merely because an area may possibly in the future be notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii). of the Central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would not cease to have competence to legislate with 1'espect to ceiling on land iitllate in such area even thou&h it is not -an urban A B c agglomeration at the date of the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Act. Un~ D t doubtedly, when an area is notified as an urbe.n agglomeration ·under section 2(n)(A)(ii), the Central Act would apply to Ianvituate in such area and the Andhm Pradesh Act wonld cease to have application but by that time the Andhra Pradesh Act would have already operated to determine the ceiling on holding of land falling within the definition in section 3 (i) of that Act and situate within such area. Therefore, the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act is neither ultmvires nor void as being outSide the area of legis· E lative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It i1 only in respect of land situate within the urban agglomerations rcfefred to in section 2(n) (A) (i) of the Central Act that the Andhra Prad.,h Act would not apply but it would be fully applicable in rOSpect of land situate in all the other area. of the State of Andhra Pradesh. [1156 G-R, 1157 A-Bl 4. A divided minor calinot be exclud\;d from the 'family unit' as defu!ed P in section 3 (f) of the Andhro. Pradesh Act. Thllt would be flying in the ' face of sections 3 (f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. I! is true that a ptlrtitiott affected prior to 2nd May 1972 is not invaliditted by the Andhra Pradeoh Act and therefore any ptI\t has no power to make laws for the States except as provided in Articles Z49 al\d 250 should 111' regulated in such State11 by Parliainent by law, and if rewlutio!J$ to that eject are passec;I by !Ill the IJoug,es of tlw Legislatures of tho5e States, it shall be lawful for Par· liarnent to pass an Act for regulating thllt matter accord- ~y. am! any A.ct so passed shall ajlply to such Sl;ltes apd to any othor State by which i¢ is adop!eQ afte!'Wlll'.ds by re~alution J;lllSsed in that behalf by the I!o~ or, where there are two IU>uses, by each of tne House~ of the Legislature of that State. (Z) An N:t 'o JM~•d by Parllamc11t 1n1y ho qemi- «i or r'~ed by JI\ A.ct of Parliall\ellt plli&Cd ot adojltc4 iII like iiw~r but '~U not, as rl:i~I~ ...,_y State to whicb it apPlilli, bi amoad«I or repealod by a11; Act of !114 ~gis lature of that State." 1' · The effect of passing al' resolutions by the Hou&ell of Legislature of two of more Stat~ 11nd~r this cotutitutiolllll provision is that Parliument wJiich has othefWise no power to l,gis1'te with respect to a matter, except &s pnlvidro in A,rtic~ 249 and 250, becomes entitled to legislate with respect to such matter and the State Legislatures passing the resolutions cease to have power to make law A B c D E F ' relating to that matter. The resolutions operate 3$ abdication or surrender of the powers of the State Legislatures with respect to the matter which is the subject of the resolutions and such matter is placed entirely in the hands of Parliament and Parliament alone can \ ' then legislate with respect to it. It is as if such matter is lifted out of List II and placed in Lilst I of the Seventh Sched\lk to the Constitution. This would seem to be quite clear on a plain natural construct10n of the language of clauses (1) aQd (2) of Article 252 and no authority is necessary in support of it, but if any was wanted, G it may be found in the decision of a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in Union of India v. V. V. Chaudhary(')-in fact the same Bench as the present one--where an identical view has been taken. H It was in pursuance of clause (1) of this Article that a Resolution ------ (!) 11979] 3 SCR 802. A B c ,D E F G H 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council on 7th April 1972 to the effect that "the imposition of a ceiling on urban immovable property and acqnisiti'CJn of such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters connected therewith or ancilliary and incidental -l thereto should be regulated in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Parliament by law" and an identical resolution in the same tem1s was passed on the next day by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Assembly. Similar resolutions were also passed by the Houses of Legislature of some other States, though there is no material to show as to when ' ' they were passed. It was however common ground that at best some of these resolutions were passed prior to the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The result was that at the date when the J Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, Parliament alone was competent ''"'\ to legislate with respect to ceiling on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and all connected, ancilliary or incidental matters, and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature stood denuded of its power to legislate on that subject. Now the Andbra Pradesh Act, as its long title shows, was enacted to consolidate and mnend the law relatirig to the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings and taking over of surplus land and ·matters connected therewith. On its plain terms, it applies to land situate in any part of Andhra Pradesh. Section 3 ( f) creates an artificial unit called 'family unit' by defining it as follows : "Sec. 3 ( f) "family unit" means- ( i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, snch individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters; if any; (ii) in the case of an individual who. has no spouse such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters; / (iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not; and (iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarriej minor daughters. T Explanation-Where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring, if any, shall also be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor son is a member; • • • • • TUMATI VBNKAISH v. A. P. (Bhagwati, /,) 1151 The term "land" is defined in section 3 (j) to mean "land which · is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, or for purposes ancillary thereto, including horticulture, forest land, · pasture land, waste land, plantation and tope; and includes land deemed to be agricultural land under this Act". Explanation I to this definition enacts a rebuttable presumption that land held under Ryotwari settlement shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be 'land' under the Andhra Pradesh Act. Section 3 ( o) defines 'person' as including inter alia an individual and a faintly unit. Sec tion 10 is the key section which imposes ceiling on the holding of land by providing that if the extent of the holding of a person is in excess of the ceiling area, the person shall be liable to surrender the '1and held in excess. If therefore an individual or a family unit holds land in excess of the ceiling area, the excess would have to be ~urrendered to the State Government. But the question then arises, what is the ceiling area above which a person cannot hold land. The answer is provided by section 4 .which reads as follows :- "Sec. 4 (1) The ceiling area in the case of a family unit ·consisting of not more than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding. (2) The ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of more than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding plus an additional extent of one-fifth of one standard holding for every such member in excess of five, so however that the· ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings. (3) The ceiling area in the case of every individual who is not a member of a family unit, and in the case of any other person shall be an exte0t of land equal to one standard holding. Explanation :-In the case of a family unit, the ceil" ing area shall be applied to the aggregate of the lands held by all the· members of the family unit". It will thus be seen that the ceiling area in the case of an individual who is not a member of a family unit is equivalent to one sfandard holding and so also in the case of a family unit with not more than five members, the ceiling area is the same, but if the family unit conA B c D .E G sists of more than five members, the ceiling area would stand increased by one-fifth of one standard holding for every additional member H of the family unit, subject however to the maximum limit of 2 standard holdings. When the ceiling area is applied t<;> the holding of a 1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. A family u¢t, the Explanation requires that the lands held by all the members of the family unit shall be aggregated for the purpose of computing the holding of the family unit. Where, therefore, there ill a family unit consisting of father, mother and three minor sons or daughters, the lands held by all these persons would have to be clul>- bed together and then the ceiling area applied to the aggregate ho)dB ing. There is no distii:iction made in the definition of 'family uuit• between a divided minor son and an undivided minor son. Both stand on the same footing and a dihall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dependent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture/or for purposes ancilliary thereto in such manner as may be prescribed by the Rnles, subject to a proviso that as far as practicable not less than one-half F of the total extent of land so allotted or transferre_d shall be allotted: or transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Section 15 enacts a provision for payment of compensation for fand vested in the State Government at the rates specified in the G Second Schedule. These are the only relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act which need to be referred to for the purpose of the present appeals. We may now tum to examine the relevant provisions of the ·~. ·~ \ / Central Act. This Act was enacted by Parliament pursuant to the M authority conferred upon it by the resolutions passed by the Houses of Legislature of several States~ including the State o' Amllira H Pradesh under clause (1) of Article 252. It received the assent of the President on 17th February 1976 and as its long tide and recita1 'hows it was enacted to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant .. • TUMATI VBNKA!SH V. A. P. (Bhi:zgwati, !.) ll 53 land is urban agglomerations for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the conc.eutr.ation of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an eqii.itabli: distribution of land in urban agglomeflltiOJJs to subserve the common good. We shall ri:i;er to a few material p!Oyisions of this Act. ~irtant !Wfiuitions which needed to be set out in extenso. The word "Pfrson" is defined in section 2(i) as including intu alia an 'individual' and the 'i!a.mily'. Section 2(n) defines "urban agglomeration" in the following terms : "&ec.2(n) (A) in relation to any State of Ullion territory specified in column ( 1 ) of Scheduk l, mllllllS-- (i) lbe url:mn i1wo1;1.eration &l)ecilied in the con~pon diPJ: entry in column ( 2) tb!:reof and inctndes tlw periphe.raJ a.rea specified ip the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof; and (ii) any other area which the State Government may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, having regard to its location, population (population being more than one lakh) and such other relevant factors as the circumstance of the case may require, by notification in the Official Ga~ette, declare to be an urban agglomeration and any agglomeration so declared shall be deemed to belong to category D in that Schedule and the peripheral area therefor shall be one kilometre; (B) xx xx xx xx Tire term 'urban land' is defined in section 2 ( o) to mean:- Sec. 2 ( o) (i) : any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan; or xx" A .A 1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. (ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality (by whatever name dilled), a notified area committee, a town area committee, a city and town committee, a small town committee, a cantonment board or a panchayat, but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the plirpose of agriculture. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause and clause (q),- (A) "agriculture" includes horticulture, but does not include-- (i) raising of grass, (ii) dairy farming, '.D (iii) poultry farming, (iv) breeding of live-stock, and (v) such cultivation, or the growing of such plant, as may be prescribed. (B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the . purpose of agriculture; (C) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture; " ( Section 2 ( q) gives a definition of "vacant land" by providing that "vacant land" means, subject to certain e.xceptions which are not mat- -0 erial, land not being land mainly used for the purpose of agricultur!, in an urban agglomeration. Section 3 is the rebuttal section which imposes ceiling on holding of 'vacant land' by providing that: "Sec. 3. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from the commencement of this Act, no person shall be H entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-section (2) of section 1." ' , • • • • ' TUMATI VENKAISH V. A. P. (Bhagwati, J.) 1155 Section 4 divides urban agglomeration into categories A, B, C and D lays down different ceiling limits for these different categories. Then there is a provision in section 5 invalidating in certain circumstances the transfer of vacant land made at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of the Act. The procedure for determining "vacant land" held in excess of the ceiling limit is laid down in sections 6 to 9 and section 1 O enacts a provision for acquisition of such land held in excess of such limit. Section 23 provides for disposal of vacant land acquired uJ&!ier the Act and it empowers the State Government to allot such vacant land to "any person for any purpose relating to or in connection with any industry or for providing residential accommodation of snch type as may be approved by the State Government to the employees of any industry. It will thus be seen that the Central Act imposes a ceiling on holding of land in urban agglomeration other than land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture and agriculture in this connection inclndes horticulture, bnt does not include raising of grass, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding live-stock and cultivation or the growing of such plants as may be prescribed by the Rules, and, moreover, in order to fall within the exclusion, the land must be entered in the revenue or land record before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture and must also not have been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture. . Now, as we have already pointed out above, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature had, at the time when the Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, no power to legislate with respect to ceiling on ·urban immovable . property. That power stood trnnsferred to parliament and as a first step towards the eventual imposition of ceiling on immovable property of every other description, the Parliament enacted the Central Act with a view to imposing ceiling on vacant land, other than land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration. The argument of the landholders was that the Andhra Pradesh Act sought A B c D E r to impose ceiling on land in the whole of Andhra Pradesh including land situate in urban agglomeration and since the concept of agglomeration defined in section 2(n) of the Central Act was an expansive concept and any area with an ei1isting or future population of more than one lakh could be notified to be an uban agglomeration, the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra vires and void as being outside the legislative competance of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. This argument plausible though it may seem, in our opinion, is unsustainable. It is no doubt true that if the Andhra Pradesh Act seeks H to impose ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration, it weuld be outside the area of its legislative competence, because it ! G A B c D E I!' 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. cannot provide for imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property. But the only urban agglomerations in the State of Andhra Pradesh: recognised in the Central Act were those referred to in section 2(n} (A) (ii) and there can be no doubt that so far as these urban agglo· merations are concerned, it was not within the legislative competence· of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to provide for imposition of ceiling on land situate within these urban aglliomerations. It is, however, dil!icult to see how the Andhra Pradesh Act could be said to be outsil;!e the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in so far as land situate in the other areas of the State of Andhra Praclesh is concerned. We accept that any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh with a population of more than om> lakh could be notit)!,Xl as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of th~ Central Act but until it is SP notified it would not be an urban 11gglomeration and the Andhrn Pradesh Legislature would have legislative competence tp provide for imposition of ceiling on lane! situate within such area. No SOPner such area is notified to bt all urb!ln aggloiru;ratlon, tllC Central Act would apply in relation to land situ/lte within such ania, but until that hiippens the Andhra Pradesh A.ct would continue to be applicable to determine the ceilin,c o• ltol!lins of land. It m.ay be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st Jaa11ary 1975 and it was with reference to tltis !lile thii surplus holding of lam! in excess of the ceiling area wa! requirtd to be determined a11d if there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State Governftient. It mnst therefore follow that in an area other than that comprised in the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (A) (i), land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area would be liable to be determined as on 1st January 1975 under _the Andhra Pradesh Act and only land within the ceiling area will be allowed to remain with him. It is only in respect of land remaining with a person whether an individual or a family after the operation of the Andhra Pradesh Act, that the Central Act would apply if and when the area in question is notified to be an urban agglomeration under section 2(n) (A) (ii) of the Central Act. We fail to see how it can at all be contended G that merely because an area may possibly in the future be nctified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A) (ii) of the Central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would cease to have competence to legislate with respect to ceiling on land situate in such area even though it is not an urban agglomeration at the date of the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Act. l'ndoubtedly, when an area is notified as H an urban agglomeration under section 2(nl (Al (ii), the Central Act would apply to land situate in such area and the Andhra Pradesh Act would cease to have application but by that time the Andhra Pradesh • f .. • J • • • \ ·~ .... ~J .~ -~ TUMAT! VENKAISH V. A. P. (Bhagwati, /.) llS'/ Act would have already operated to determine the ceiling on holding >Of land falling within the definition in section 3 (j) of that Act and situate within such area. It is therefpre not possible to uphold the. contention of the landholders that the whole of the. Andhra Pradesh Act is ultra vires and void as being outside the area of legislative competence of the . Andhra Pradesh Legislature.