# _. STATE OF A.P v. SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1104
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-01-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2002
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-a-p-v-singireddy-ramulu-and-anr-24095
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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
possessi

## Text

[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]
Yedida Chakradhararao (Dead) Through his Lrs. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 2 SCC 523; State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors. V. M. Lakshmi Devi and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC D
421 - relied on.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 827
of 2002.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.09.1999 of E
the High Court of Judicatureof Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Civil Revision Petition No. 3176 of 1995.
Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V.
George for the Appellant.
...
V. Sudheer, M.B.R.S. Raju, Sunita, S. Balaji, J.B. Ravi,
F
S. R. Sharma and S. Srinivasan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
G
..
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
t
Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision filed by the State of Andhra
Pradesh dismissing the revision petition filed.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent No.2 was a declarant in respect of lands H
1107
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
A covered by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short the 'Act'). The
declaration was filed by respondent No.2 Maqbool Alam under
Section 8(1) of the Act in response to the public notice in Form
IV as required under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land
· B Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short
the 'Rules') containing the particulars of the land and the persons
holding such lands in respect of the declaration received which
was duly notified. By various modes the fact of receipt of the
declaration and its availability for public inspection in the office
c of Lands Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad (in short the 'Tribunal') was
announced by beat of drums in all the villages in which the lands
were situated on 6. 7 .1975. The declaration was referred to the
Tehsildar under Section 4(5) for local inspection and verification.
A copy received from the Tehsildar, Adilabad was furnished to
D the declarant and to the officer authorized by the Government in
this behalf. No objection was received in response to the public
notice. Thereafter an enquiry was held on 5.10.1976 after issuing
notice to the declarant who was present on the date fixed. The
officer authorized by the Government i.e. Special Tehsildar (Land
E Reforms), Adilabad was also present. Enquiry was completed
on 22.2.1977. After completion of enquiry by the Addi. Revenue
Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal) Adilabad Division, it
was held that the declarant holds land in excess of the
permissible limit and he was required to surrender excess land
Under Section 10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice was issued
F to him under Section 10(2) of the Act and Form VI under the
Rules. According to the verification report which was scrutinized,
the family unit consisted of four members i.e. declarant, his wife
and two minor unmarried daughters. By order dated 22.2.1977
the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms
G Tribunal) held that the family unit was entitled to 1000 standard
holdings and since the standard holding was more than the
ceiling area under Section 4(A) of the Act, which was determined
under Section 9 of the Act the declarant held an extent of 0.9170
standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area on the notified
H date i.e. on 1.1.1975 and was liable to surrender the excess
STATE OF A.P. v. SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.
1108
[PASAYAT, J.]
.+
land. Surrender proceedings were thereafter initiated and the A
declarant was directed to file surrender statement. On 2.1.1999
respondent No. 2 filed the surrender statement proposing to
surrender the lands in Wanvath Village, Adilabad District and
the same was accepted by the Tribunal on 2.1.1999. Against·
the said acceptance of surrender, a third party i.e. respondent B
No. 1 filed a Claim bearing L. R.A. No. 86 of 1994 before the
..-
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar (in short the
•
'Appellate Tribunal') contending that accepting the surrender in
-·
respect of land situated in Survey No. 4/B admeasuring Acres
11.07 Guntas of Nanvath Village in lieu of excess land. His stand c
was that the respondent No. 2 had shown in his declaration that
he_ sold the surrendered land under agreement of sale dated
19.1.1971 and ever since that date, he was in continuous .
possession of the land by paying land revenue. Grievance was
that the Tribunal without considering relevant records accepted D
....
the surrender of the land and ignoring the objection petition filed
).
by respondent No.1 on 26.9.1978. It was therefore stated that
the observation that no objection was received within the
stipulated time is incorrect. The agreement for sale dated
6.2.1971 and certain other documents were filed. The Appellate E
Tribunal by its judgment dated 28.9.1994 allowed the appeal
and directed exclusion of acre 11.07 guntas of Nanvath Village.
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 is concerned.
F
3. Appellant-State filed Civil Revision assailing the
judgment of the AP,pellate Tribunal but the same was dismissed
by the impugned order.
4. In support of the appeal, it was contended that the
declarant himself had not chosen to file an appeal. The G
. 1
respondent No. 1 could not file an appeal before the Appellate
Tribunal in the absence of an appeal by the declarant. It was
further submitted that there was no registered sale deed and
the alleged agreement for sale was not of any consequence.
H
1109
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 1 S.C.R.
A
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
•
supported the order of the High Court affirming that of the
Appellate Tribunal.
6. In Yedida Chakradhararao (Dead) Through his Lrs. V
State of Andhra Pradesh (1990 (2) sec 523), it was inter alia
B observed as follows:
"6. Section 8 provides, in brief, that every person whose
...
holding on the notified date together with any land
• •
transferred by him on or after January 24, 1971 exceeds
c
the specified limits, shall within 30 days from the notified
date, namely January 1, 1975 or such extended period as
the government may notify in that behalf furnish a declaration
in respect of his holding to the competent Tribunal ..
11. The main submission of learned counsel for the
D
appellants is that the expression 'holding' has been defined
in sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the said Act, the definition
section set out earlier, as meaning the entire land held by
a person (emphasis supplied) and that the use of the said
word "held" in the definition indicates that the person who
E
is supposed to hold the land, must necessarily be the
person in possession of the said land; and hence where,
in part performance for 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 land cannot any longer
F
be regarded as holding the said land and it cannot be
said that the said land is held by him. It was submitted by
learned counsel that in view of this context although the
Explanation to sub-section (i) of Section 3 is very widely
worded, its meaning cannot be so extended as to cover
G
a case where the owner of the land is no longer in
possession of the land and has parted with the possession
'
'
thereof under an agreement creating a right, legal or
equitable, in the land concerned. We find it difficult to
accept this contention. Clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (i)
H
of Section 3 set out the various capacities in which a
STATE OF A.P. v. SINGIREDDY RAMULU AND ANR.
1110
[PASAYAT, J.]
person can be said to "hold" land for the purposes of the A
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 or through part
performance of a contract of sale". The very language of
sub-section (i) of Section 3 indicates that land can be B
held as contemplated in the said sub-section by persons
in a number of capacities. The Explanation in plain
language states that the same land 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 c
the holdings of both such persons. The Explanation thus
clearly contemplates that the same land can be held as
contemplated under sub-section (i) 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 the land 0
in part performance of an agreement to sell. On a plain
reading of the language used in the Explanation, we find
it that it is not possible to accept the submission that only
where the land is in possession of a person can that land
be regarded as held by him."
E
7. The position was reiterated in State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors. v. M. Lakshmi Devi & Ors. [1993(2) SCC 421).
8. In view of the law as delineated by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal
is bound to succeed. The orders passed by the Appellate
F
Tribunal and the High Court in the Civil Revision cannot be
maintained and are therefore set aside.
9. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.
D.G.
Appeal allowed.
G