# STATE OFAP. & ANR. * v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 16 S.C.R. 792
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-11-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2002
- **Bench:** Lokeshwar Singh Panta, Sirpurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-ofap-anr-v-t-yadagiri-reddy-ors-23955
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

-,,:
·ANDHRA ·PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON
c AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973:
. ss. 8 and 13 - Holding .of original land owner held by
protected tenant :-- HELD: Lands in question having stood
transferred to protected tenant uls 38-E of Tenancy Act, shall
D be excluded from the holding of the owner and included in
the holding of the tenant - Besides, on coming into force of
the Act, the tenant and his sons had filed declarations u/s 8,
in respect of the land in question .and on due verification the
Land Tribunal had held the said land with them as not surplus,
~
'
+
E and (he said decision having become final, again the said
land could not have been included in the holding of the
original land owners - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950- ss. 38, 38-B, ·38E and 50-8(4).
.>
F
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950:
•
*
ss. 38, 47 and 48- Right of protected land to purchase
land- HELD: Land purchased byprotected tenant from land
G holders out of the income of joint famiiy property, became joint
family property so as to be open for partition and status of
protected tenan{ extended to other members of undivided
4-.
family - Sections 47 and 48 which provided for permission
y
before transferswere made, were deleted w.e.f. 1969.
H
792
STATE OFA.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS. 793
> -+
ss. 38-B and 38-E - Land holders relinquishing their A
+
rights in land in favour of protected tenant - HELD: In the
instant case, land- holders had relinquished their interests in
the lands in question in 1983 and certificates had been issued
in favour of the tenants, as suoh, the said lands could not have
been included in the holding of the /and-owners for being B
declared as surplus under Ceiling Act - Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - s. 13.
s. 50-8(4) - Power of Collector to re-open suo-motu, the
certificates issued - HELD: In the instant case, 1there was no C
impropriety in issuing the certificate, to justify suo motu action
on the part of the Collector - Besides, the rights of parties have
already been crystallized and on the basis thereof, further
rights have been created in favour of several persons.
A public notice under the Andhra Pradesh ·Land
D
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was
issued on 6.2.1996 inviting objections to declare the lands
in question admeasuring 123 acres 17 guntas shown as
Survey Nos.24 to 30 and 39 as surplus with the original
land holders. The respondents filed objections
E
contending that their father was in possession as tenant
of the said lands on 10.6.1975, the date on which the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 came into force, and as such
he was the protected tenant in respect thereof, that their
F
father had entered· into an agreement on 25.2.1956 with
-.,1the land holders in terms of s.38 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950; thereafter the land in question was divided in six
equal shares amongst 5 respondents and their father;
G ,
that on coming into force of the Ceiling Act, their father
and they filed six separate declarations, and on
~ verification by the Revenue authorities, the Land Tribunal
passed six separate orders on 14,.8.1975 and 27.10.1975
holding the land in question as non-surplus with the
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A respondents and their father, 'Who died subsequently;
+ '
that no appeal was preferred against the said orders
which attained finality, and, therefore, the instant
proceedings were barred by principle of res-judicata. The ·. ·
respondents relied on the certificates issued u/s 38-E of
B the Tenancy Act and contended that the lands in question
were entitled to be excluded u/s 13 of the Ceiling Act from
the holdings of the original land holders. The Tribunal
rejected. the objections. The appeal of the respondents
...
was partly allowed by the Land

## Text

_Characters 0–39,939 of 68,961. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39939 for what follows._

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 792
A
STATE OFAP. & ANR.
*
..
v.
T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2002)
B
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND V.5,
SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
-,,:
·ANDHRA ·PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON
c AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973:
. ss. 8 and 13 - Holding .of original land owner held by
protected tenant :-- HELD: Lands in question having stood
transferred to protected tenant uls 38-E of Tenancy Act, shall
D be excluded from the holding of the owner and included in
the holding of the tenant - Besides, on coming into force of
the Act, the tenant and his sons had filed declarations u/s 8,
in respect of the land in question .and on due verification the
Land Tribunal had held the said land with them as not surplus,
~
'
+
E and (he said decision having become final, again the said
land could not have been included in the holding of the
original land owners - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950- ss. 38, 38-B, ·38E and 50-8(4).
.>
F
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950:
•
*
ss. 38, 47 and 48- Right of protected land to purchase
land- HELD: Land purchased byprotected tenant from land
G holders out of the income of joint famiiy property, became joint
family property so as to be open for partition and status of
protected tenan{ extended to other members of undivided
4-.
family - Sections 47 and 48 which provided for permission
y
before transferswere made, were deleted w.e.f. 1969.
H
792
STATE OFA.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS. 793
> -+
ss. 38-B and 38-E - Land holders relinquishing their A
+
rights in land in favour of protected tenant - HELD: In the
instant case, land- holders had relinquished their interests in
the lands in question in 1983 and certificates had been issued
in favour of the tenants, as suoh, the said lands could not have
been included in the holding of the /and-owners for being B
declared as surplus under Ceiling Act - Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - s. 13.
s. 50-8(4) - Power of Collector to re-open suo-motu, the
certificates issued - HELD: In the instant case, 1there was no C
impropriety in issuing the certificate, to justify suo motu action
on the part of the Collector - Besides, the rights of parties have
already been crystallized and on the basis thereof, further
rights have been created in favour of several persons.
A public notice under the Andhra Pradesh ·Land
D
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was
issued on 6.2.1996 inviting objections to declare the lands
in question admeasuring 123 acres 17 guntas shown as
Survey Nos.24 to 30 and 39 as surplus with the original
land holders. The respondents filed objections
E
contending that their father was in possession as tenant
of the said lands on 10.6.1975, the date on which the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 came into force, and as such
he was the protected tenant in respect thereof, that their
F
father had entered· into an agreement on 25.2.1956 with
-.,1the land holders in terms of s.38 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950; thereafter the land in question was divided in six
equal shares amongst 5 respondents and their father;
G ,
that on coming into force of the Ceiling Act, their father
and they filed six separate declarations, and on
~ verification by the Revenue authorities, the Land Tribunal
passed six separate orders on 14,.8.1975 and 27.10.1975
holding the land in question as non-surplus with the
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A respondents and their father, 'Who died subsequently;
+ '
that no appeal was preferred against the said orders
which attained finality, and, therefore, the instant
proceedings were barred by principle of res-judicata. The ·. ·
respondents relied on the certificates issued u/s 38-E of
B the Tenancy Act and contended that the lands in question
were entitled to be excluded u/s 13 of the Ceiling Act from
the holdings of the original land holders. The Tribunal
rejected. the objections. The appeal of the respondents
...
was partly allowed by the Land Reforms Appellate
c Tribunal. However, the High Court in the revision petition
allowed the claim of the respondents in respect of the
entire land in question.
In the instant appeal filed by the State, the questions
D
for consideration before the Court were: (1) "Whether the
respondents ever got the status of 'protected tenant' visa-vis the land concerned within the meaning assigned to
that term in the Tenancy Act and what is the effect, and
.,,
whether that status would result in excluding the land
"'
~
from the operation of the Ceiling Act;" (2) "Whether the
E land concerned can be included in the holding of the
original land holders and be declared surplus to the
detriment of the respondents Nos. 1-5;" and (3) "Whether
the Government would be justified in reopening the
ceiling cases, which stood finalized, as also whether it
F would be justified in opening the cases, wherein the
Certificates were granted to the respondents declaring
-lo:-
them as protected tenants, vis-a-vis, the concerned land."
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. Under s.13 of the Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (C~iling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972, a
...
special provision is made for the protected tenants. The
'Y
section provides that where the holding of any owner
includes any land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal
H
STATE OFA.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
795
;.
......
shall, in the first instance, determine whether such land A
or part thereof has been transferred to the protected
tenant u/s 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and if such
transfer is made, such land shall be excluded from the
holding of the owner and included in the holding of such
B
tenant. In the instant case, undisputedly, the father of the
respondents was holding the lands in question as a
tenant at the commencement of the Tenancy Act and he
·was a protected tenant in respect thereof. The land was
subsequently divided in six equal shares to the five c
respondents and their father. [Para 2, 9 and 11] [801-CD; 811-D-E; 812-C]
1.2. As soon as the Ceiling Act came into existence,
the respondents and their father, filed separate
declarations u/s 8 of the Ceiling Act in respect of the lands
D
in their possession. These claims were duly verified and
were not disputed at any time. The enquiry was made on
the basis of the declarations and even a public notice was
issued as prescribed by the rules, which publication took
place on 16.6.1975 and 20.6.1975. On receiving 'No
E
Objection', the orders were passed specifically
mentioning that the respondents and their father had
claimed 1/6th share each in the lands held by their father
as owner u/s 38-E of the Tenancy Act and that even if the
1/6th share claimed by one son is taken into
consideration, the total holding of the son would be less F
than ceiling area and, as such, the claim was accepted
· and the matters were closed, holding that the Individual
sons did not own the land In excess of the celling areas.
[Para 14] [814·B·E]
G
..
.....
1.3. The Tribunal held that the father of the
•
respondents had in the year 1955 purchased 123 acres
17 guntas (the land in question) from the original land
holders out of income of the Joint Hindu Family and thus,
the whole property became a joint family property, so as H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
A to be open for partition and accordingly, the partition was
-\-
...
not only effected in the year 1956, but, acted upon also
~
by the separate cultivations of all the six members. This
order particularly holds that father of the respondents
was a protected tenant and his status as a protected
B tenant was not an individual status, but, the status
belonged even to the other members of his undivided
family. This order has remained unchallenged and has
become final. Even the other cases of the respondents
were finalized and they were also closed. On this strong
c background, it will be futile to say that the respondents
and their father, were not the protected tenants. They
were not only treated as the protected tenants, but their
individual cases were also dealt with by the Tribunal,
which ·held that individually, they did not hold any land
D
more than the ceiling area. All these orders, right from
1975 till date, i.e., for 33 years, have remained
unchallenged. [Para 16] (818-B-0]
1.4. The plea of the State that there being no
permission for transfer of the lands in question in terms
E of ss. 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act, the lands could not
have been purchased in pursuance of the agreement
dated 22.5.1956, cannot be accepted since ss. 47 and 48
of the Tenancy Act which provided for permission before
transfers were made u/s 38, were deleted from 1969. [Para
F 5] [804-0]
2.1. It will be seen from the language of s.13 of the
Ceiling Act that the Tribunal has, as a first duty, to decide
the extent of land transferred under Section 38-E and then
to exclude such land. The use of the words "in the first
G instance" only suggests that the first finding that the
Tribunal has to give, is about the land covered u/s 38-E of
...
the Tenancy Act. However, the Section nowhere provides
r
that the Tribunal does not have to decide about the lands
covered u/s 38-B of the Tenancy Act. [Para 17]
H
STATE OF A.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS. 797
2.2. In the instant case, the land holders, had, u/s 38A
;
~
B relinquished their interests in the land in question, way
back in 1983 and the certificates dated 13.4.1983 were
issued in favour of the respondents, which certificates
have not been disputed till date. There is comple,te
description of the lands of Survey nos. 24 to 30 and 39.
B
This is, apart from the fact that the said. land in respe'ct
of which the certificates were issued u/s 38-B, has also
been held in the holding of the respondents. Under su(fh
circumstances, it cannot be said that the land in question
should have been held in the holding of the landlord and c
should have been made available for distribution.
Therefore, it will have to be held that even in respect 9f
the lands covered u/s 38-B in this case, where the rights
of the respondents were finally decided both under
Tenancy Act and the Ceiling Act, this land could not hav,e
D
been made available for being declared as surplus Ian~,
holding it to be within the holding of the land holder. [Para
17 and 18] [819-D·G·; 820-B]
...
~
B. Shankarayya Vs. Land Reforms Tribunal, Kamareddy
1976 ALT 171 (NRC), refe~red to.
E
2.3. It is also pointed out that the names of the five
respondents are found in the lists of protected tenants
maintained in Register No. 1 and other Registers. Not only
this, there is an order to the effect that, in pursuance of F
the Certificate under Section 38-B, the mutation is
~
proposed in respect of the five respondents. Even these
orders have remained unchallenged by any person
muchless, by the State Government. Once this is the
position, then it is obvious that under the provisions of G
Ceiling Act, these lands could not have been declared as
:;..
the surplus land. [Para 18] [820-C-F]
-.
2.4. The land holders had included Survey Nos. 24
to 30 and 39 measuring 123 acres 19 cents. They had
H
~ ...
~
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A also specifically declared that these lands were with the
.,_
..
protected tenants. However, no notices were issued to the
respondents, and ultimately, their ceiling case came to be
decided as late as on 22.7.1994. It is then, that a notice
came to be issued in form No. VIII that the lands specified
B in the Schedule were proposed to be surrendered or
selected for. surrender under Section 10 of the Ceiling
Act. This document includes and mentions Survey Nos.
24. to 30 and 39. It is on that basis, that the respondents
raised objections, which objections were rejected,
c requiring the respondents to file revision before the High
Court, which revision was allowed. Considering all these
aspects and more particularly, the orders passed by the
authorities, it is Clear that the judgment of the High Court
was correctly passed. [Para 19] [820-G-H; 821-A-B]
D
2.5. There are valid orders passed by the Tribunal,
having the jurisdiction to pass the same, which would
show that once' the land was shown and concluded to
be in the holding of the protected tenant, it could not
....
have been included in the holding of the landlord,
~
E muchless, it could not have been declared to be surplus.
The respondents have been declared to be th~ protected
tenants, and the Certificates have been g~anted in their
favour and their individual cases have also been finalized.
[Para 20 and 21] [821-C-D; 822-A-B]
F
R. Kanthimathi & Anr. Vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.) 2000 (9)
SCC 339; N. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Special Court under the A.P.
+-
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Others 2006(4) SCC
214, held inapplicable.
G
State of A.P. Vs. S. Vishwanatha Raju & Ors. 1995 (3)
sec 327' distinguished.
'
3. No doubt the Collector has suo motu power u/s 50-
.,
8(4) of the Tenancy Act to reopen the certificates, but the
H
STATE OF AP. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
799
question is whether there was any fraud played or any
A
impropriety shown, more particularly, on the part of the
respondents, in whose favour the said Certificates were
granted. At no point of time, have the respondents or even
their father ever played any fraud against any authority,
nor did they ever suppress any relevant fact from any
B
authority. They openly came out with a case regarding the
agreement executed on 25.2.1956; thereafter, they openly
propounded a theory of partition, which theory was
accepted by the Tribunal in ceiling matter in their case as
well as in the case of their father and ultimately, they c
obtained the Certificate under Section 38-8, way back in
1983. There does not seem to be any impropriety in the
said proceedings, to justify a suo motu action on the part
of the· Collector, so as to put the clock back. The rights
of the parties have already been crystallized. Not only 0
this, the said lands are stated to have now been
converted and sold to as many as approximately 1100
persons, by way of residential plots. [Para 22 and 23] [822H; 823•A-D; 825•A]
lbrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham Vs.
E
K. Suresh Reddy and Others, 2003 (7) SCC 667,
Distinguished.
Case law Reference:
referred to
para 17
held inapplicable para 21
held inapplicable para 21
F
1976 ALT 171 (NRC)
2000 (9) sec 339
2006(4) sec 214 ,
1995 (3) sec 327
2003 (7) sec 667
distinguished
para 22
G
distinguished
· para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6557 of 2002.
H
. 800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R .
"I ,.
A
From the final Order dated 20.3.2001 of the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision
'
I
•
.
'
•
'
Petition No'. 4351 of 1997.
R. Sundara'vardan, Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr. Singh and
B T.V. George for the Appellants.
, P.P. Rao, K. Maruthi. Rao, K. Radha, Tulasi·Reddy ~nd
Anjani Aiyagari for the Respondents.
The Judgment df the Court was delivered by
c
V.S. ·SIRPURKAR, J. 1. A Judgment by the High Court
allowing a Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order
I ,
passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal::.cum-11
Additional District Judge of Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter
D
called 'the Appellate Tribunal' for short) is in.challenge before
us. The High Court while allowing the Revision, recognized the
rights of fhe respondents herein as the protected tenants and
further held th.at they become absolute owners of the land by
.,_
.,
purchasing th~ land in respect of which they were· protected
~
E
tenants. As a sequel, the High Court held that the l~nd held by
them could not be declared as a surplus land and could not be
distributed as such. Before we approach the disputed
questions, a factual background would be necessary.
2. Five respondents, namely, (1) Shri T. Yadagiri Reddy,
F (2) Shri T. Bal Reddy, (3) Shri T. Janardhan Reddy, (4) Shri T.
Mehan Reddy, (5) Shri T. Satyanarayana Reddy are the sons
of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy. According to them, the said Late
Shri T. Papi Reddy was a protected, tenantfrom (1) Late Shri
Khaja Shakhir Hussain, (2) Shri Khaja Nasir Hussain, (3) Smt.
G Razia Sultana W/o Mir ·sadath Ali: It is the. case of the
respondents, as seen from their Counter affidavit that at the
..
commencement of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy &
"
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Tenancy
Act" for short) and more precisely, on 10.6.1950, their father
H Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was deemed to be the protected
STATE OF A.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
801
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
j,. 4'
tenant of the land, admeasuring 123 Acres 17 guntas, bearing
A
Survey Nos. 18 to 24 (old), i.e., new Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and
39 of Meerpet Revenue Village, Saroornagar Mandal,
Ran.gareddy District, Andhra Pradesh. This land belonged to
Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others, who were the
Jagirdars of that Village. Their father Late Shri Papi Reddy
B
entered into an agreement on 25.2.1956 with Late Shri Khaja ,
Shakhir Hussain and others for transfer of land holders' interest
~
in the said land to the tenants Late Shri T. Papi Reddy himself
and the present respondents. The respondents asserted that
this was under the provisions of Section 38-A & B of the, c
Tenancy Act. They further pleaded that there was oral partition
between Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and his sons, i.e.,
.,.
respondents, in which lands stood divided and that !ncluded
also the concerned land to the extent of 123 acres 17 guntas, ,
comprising of Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39. According to the
respondents, the whole land was divided into six equal shares.
D
--<
They then pointed out that on 1.1.1975, AP. Land Reforms
...,
'-
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called
~
"the Ceiling Act" for short) came on the anvil. Under the
provisions of that Act, Late Shri T. Papi Reddy, as also the
E
'
present respondents filed six separate declarations regarding
the land owned and possessed by them and these declarations
included the aforementioned Survey numbers also, which were
obtained by them in their capacity as the protected tenants. It
_is the further case of the respondents that a Verification Report
F
in respect of the declarations made by the respondents and
-f
Late Shri T. Papi Reddy were verified by the Verification Officer
and the same Report was submitted to the Land Reforms
Tribunal I-cum-Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter
called 'the Tribunal) of Ranga Reddy District, appointed under
the Ceiling Act. This was on 31.7.1975 and 8.8.1975. In
G
between 14.8.1975 and 22.10.1975, six orders came to be
..
passed by the Tribunal. The dates and the other details of these
"
Revenue cases, dealt with by the Land Reforms Tribunal, were
as under:-
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A s.
Name of the
C.C. Reference
Date of
Exhibits
~ ..
No.
Declarants
No.
Order
No.
~
1.
T. Papi Reddy (father) .
1006/En5
27.10.1975
A-12
2.
T. Yadagiri Reddy
439/E/75
14.8.1975
r
I
B
3.
T. Bal Reddy
440/E/75
14.8;1975
A-8
4.
T. Janardhan Reddy
801/E/75
14.8.1975
A-6.
l===
'l..._,-
5. 'T. Mohan Reddy
1009/E/75
14.8.1975
A-4
..
6.
T. Satyanarayana Reddy 1143/E/75
14.8.1975
A-5
Ic
t
3. So far so good. The respondents claimed that they
continued to be in possession of the lands, since none of them
~~
had held more land than the ceiling area prescribed by the
D
Ceiling Act. The orders passed in their case, shown in the Table
above were also not appealed against by the State Government
and had become final. While the matters in case of the
~
respondents stood thus, a further development took place as
,.,
follows.
~
~
E
4. On 22. 7, 1994, an order came. to be passed by the
Tribunal, purporting to hold the lands in Survey Nos. 24 to 30
and 39 in the holdings of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and
others (land holders) and it was declared in that order that the
land holders therein were surplus holders. The respondents
~
F pointed out that this order was completely oblivious of the six
orders passed in case of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and
themselves, shown in the Table nor did they (Late Shri T. Papi
~
Reddy and the respondents herein) join as parties to the
proceedings. It was further pointed out that on 6.2.1996, a
G public notice was issued by the Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District,
calling for the objections in declaring Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and
39 as the surplus land, as held by Late Shri Khaja Shakhir
....
Hussain and others. However, Late Shri T. Papi Reddy had
t'
already expired on 21.11.1975, i.e., barely one month after the
H order in his case was passed. On 13.2.1996, the respondents
STATE OF AP. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
803
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
> .,
filed the objections to the proposal of the said Sutvey Nos. 24
A
to 30 and 39, being surrendered as a surplus land.
The Tribunal rejected the objections filed by these
respondents by order dated. 22. 7 .1995 (2.3.1996), against
which they filed an appeal on 11.8.1997 before the Land .'9
Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, A.P. By its
...
order dated 9.9.1997, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the
appeal only to the extent of 33 acres and 12 guntas in the
aforementioned Survey Numbers, while the said appeal was c
rejected in respect of the remaining extent of 90 acres of land.
That order was challenged by way of a Civil Revision Petition
before the High Court, being Civil Revision Petition No. 4351
of 1997 and the said order was set aside by the High Court by
the impugned order. The respondents, therefore, claimed that
D
they were protected tenants and there was no question of the
land comprising of 3 Survey numbers, being declared as
..
surplus and it had long ceased to be the land of Late Shri Khaja
~
Shakhir Hussain and others, and they had become the full
owners of that land. In short, they claimed that they had
purchased the said land in the capacity of the protected tenants
E
-j
in terms of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act. They further pleaded
that if the proceedings under the Ceiling Act concerning them
had become final, as such, those orders had become resjudicata against the State. They also pointed out that after the
death of their father Shri T. Papi Reddy in the year 1975 and
F
--;
even before that they had partitioned the land and all through,
they were treated to be the protected tenants earlier and
thereafter, the land holders. They relied on substantial Revenue
record in support of their status as the protected tenants, as
also the Certificates issued by the Revenue Department under G
~
Section 38-E of the .Tenancy Act, signifying their exclusive
-..
nexus with the land to the exclusion of the original land holder.
. 5. Before we advert to the arguments of Shri R,
Sundaravardan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for State
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A of Andhra Pradesh and the reply thereto by Shri P. P. R~o.
1r .
' Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, it will
'
be better to see the findings given by the Learned Single Judge
of the High Court. The High Court, firstly found that the Appellate
• Tribunal had allowed "the appeals to the extent of 33 acres ,12
:B guntas, .in respect of which the ownership Certificates were
granted under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, in support of
. which the respondents had filed Exhibit A-2: The High Court
also found that the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal
in respect of 96 ·acres 12 guntas on the ground that these lands
c were covered by Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act. The
respondents had 1filed the Certificates - Exhibit A-1. The High
Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal had taken a view that
in pursuance of the Agreement dafed 22.5.1956, the land
holders could not have purchased the lands, as there was no
·D permission under Section 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act for
such sales, However, the High Court proceeded on the ground
that the lands were covered under Section 38-8 of the T enanGy
I
. Act. The question before it was as to whether such Ja.nds held
~
by a. protected tenant and covered under Section 38-B of the
-'\
E T ~nancy Act were liable to be excluded under Section 13 of the
Ceiling· Act from the ·ceiling area of the land holder. The,High
·Cour:t t~en noted that the respondents were never made parties
to the Ceiling proceedings in respect of Late Shri Khaja
Shakhir Hussain and others made on the basis of the
declarations filed in C.C. Nos. 2476, 2477 and 2478 of 1975,.
F in which the lands were shown in their holding. The High Court
then took the note of the separate ceiling cases, which had
Ir
attained the finality by the various orders passed between
27 .10.1975 and 14.8.1975, ·in which it was held that the
respondents were entitled to 1_/6th share and they were nonG surplus holders in respect of the lands held by them as the
protected tenants. The High Court noted that those orders had
become final. The High Court, therefore, took the note of the
.,.
..
fact that in spite of this finality in those cases, these lands were
again included in the holding of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir
H
STATE OF AP. &.ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS. 805
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
•
--J
Hussain and one another (the original respondent Nos. 3 & 4
A
'
before the High Court) and they were declared to be .the surplus
holders and further, suo moto proceedings were also initiated
in respect of1hose lands. The High Court found that there was
no dispute with the primary fact that the respondents' father
Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was the protected tenant in respect-of
B
not only those lands in respect of which the Certificates under
Section 38-E was issued, but also in respect of the land falling
'I
under Section 38-B. The High Court then held that the
respondents were not strangers or trespassers, but, were the
protected tenants, and as such, their land stood excluded under c
Section 13 of the Ceiling Act. The High Court extensively dealt
with Section 13 of the Ceiling Act, Section 38 of the Tenancy
Act and more particularly, sub-Section B thereof and came to
the conclusion that a Certificate issued under Section 38-B was
on par with the Certificate granted under Section 38-E of the
D
Tenancy Act. It, therefore, concluded that there was.no question
of applicability of Section 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act,
-
requiring prior permission. Relying on two reported decisions,
..
the High Court ultimately held that in view of the Certificate
having been granted in favour of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy under
E
Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act, the respondents had become
the ·absolute owners, and as such, their land could not be
included in the ceiling area of the land holder and could not be
put for distribution, treating it to be the surplus land. The Civil.
Revision was allowed With these observations.
F
-.;
6. Shri R. Sundaravardan, Learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the appellant State of Andhra Pradesh
assailed the judgment, firstly, on the ground that Late Shri T.
Papi Reddy, father of the respondents herein, himself could not
be a protected tenant and thereby, even the respondents, who
G
were his sons could not have become the protected tenants in
...
law. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that since the very
..
basis of the claim of the respondents is without any substance,
the further claim of the separate possession in their capacity
as the protected tenants has no basis. The Learned Senior . H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 16 S.C.R.
._,
A Counsel for this argument, relied on the plea raised by the
I::
.i
,
\'
respondents that there was an Agreement of Purchase
'
I
between Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and the Jagirdars (landlords)
)--
in res"pect 'of 123 acres ,and 17 guntas of land contained in
Survey Nos. 24 to 30 and 39. The Learned Senior Counsel
!,
'c
'
B pointed out that ever since the said Agreement was executed,
the possession of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy, as also his sons,
di9 riot remain that of the protected tenants, and in fact, Late
>
Shri T .. Papi Reddy alone became an owner of ttie said land
)'.
Iand in that view; there Gould not have been also a partition
c between Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and his sons, as was claimed
by the respondents, for the simple reason that the said land did
not have the character of a partible estate since the· land was
tenanted land once upon a time. The.Learned Senior Counsel
I
t
carried his arguments further and sugge~ted that even assuming
~
D that th~ said tenal)cy continued in favour of Late Shri T. Papi
!
·Reddy and after his death, in favour of the respondents, there
was nothing on rec<;> rd to' suggest that there was any, permission
obtained under Section 47 by either Late Shri T. Papi Reddy
...
or the respon,dents for purchasing this land. lastly, the Learned
~
E Senior Counsel contended that even if it is assumed that the
Istatus of protected tenant was conferred upon the tespondent3
I •
under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and further even if there
were final orders passed under the Ceiling Act, which remained
(_
t
unchallenged by the Government, it v,J,as always open for the
F
Government under Section 50 ofthe Tenancy Act to reopen the
proceedings. The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, argued
that a~ .least excepting Late Shri T. Papi Reddy,. whose claim
'r
was admitted in respect of the lands covered by the Certificate
u·nder Section. 38-E, the other lands in possession of the
respondents were bound to be declared as.surplus lands.
G
7. As against this, Shri P. P Rao, Learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the respondents, firstly contended that
....
the o'rders dated 14.8.1975 and 27.10.1975 passed by the
r
Tribunal had become final and binding on' the parties thereto,
H including the State Government, and since there was no appeal
STATE OF AP. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
807
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
•
•
j
under Section 20(5) of the Ceiling Act, those orders would
A
operate as res-judicata in all the subsequent proceedings. The
Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there was no scope
..
for reopening these orders. Shri Rao also criticized the order
dated 22.7.1994, passed by the Tribunal, declaring 17.9766
standard holdings of land of the original land holders to be in
B
excess as void, ab initio, particularly, because the said land
was belonging to the respondents, who were admittedly the
~
protected tenants in occupation of the land and in whose case,
the Tribunal had passed the order approximately 20 years back,
at the time when the impugned orders (dated 14.08.1975 and c
27.10.1975) were passed. It was pointed out that no orders in
respect of these lands could have been passed unless the
respondents were noticed by the Tribunal, and further, the
Counsel pointed out that the respondents had the Certificates
issued under Section 38-B, which rendered the orders passed
0
by the Tribunal in case of the original land holders, without
jurisdiction. The Learned Senior Counsel further contended that
there was no question of the land in possession of a protected
tenant being declared as surplus land, which was liable to be
surrendered. It was pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel
that the Certificates granted in favour of the respondents under
E
Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act remained valid and in the
present case, so remained valid, since they were not
challenged, and at the same time, the Tribunal, under the
Ceiling Act, had no jurisdiction to declare the said Certificate
as illegal. The Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to
F
--t
the provisions of the Tenancy Act to suggest that the tenancy
rights were heritable rights. Our attention was also invited to
Section 13(1) of the Ceiling Act, as also Section 38-B of the
Tenancy Act. Shri Rao, therefore, contended that the order of
the High Court was unassailable. The Learned Se;-iior Counsel
G
also took us through the history of this lengthy litigation and
-..
pointed out that on 13.4.1983, Certificate of Ownership was
issued under Section 38-B of the Tenancy Act and the mutation
also took place in favour of the respondents in respect of 90
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A acres 4 .guntas of land, which was a land in question, which
Certificate had attained the finality. The Learned Senior
Counsel pointed out that the land concerned was sold after it
was converted into the non-agricultural land to as many as 1, 137
purchasers for residential purposes. It is on these conflicting
B claims that we have to examine the judgment.
8. On these conflicting contentions, the question which
crops up is whether the concerned land can be included in the
holding of the priginal land holders and.be declared surplus to
the detriment of the respondent Nos. 1-5. This question would
C depend upon the answer to the question as to whether the
respondents ever got the status of a 'protected tenant', vis-avis the concerned land, within the meaning assigned to that
term in the Tenancy Act and what is the effect, and whether that
status would result in excluding the land from the operation of
D the Ceiling Act Since Shri Sundaravardan also contended
about reopening of the ceiling and tenancy cases, still another
question would be whether the Government would now be
justified in reopening the ceiling cases, which stood finalized,
as also whether it would be.justified in opening the cases,
E wherein the Certificates were granted to the respondents
declaring them as protected tenants, vis-a-vis, the concerned
land.
9. Before we take up the consideration on these
F questions, since the matter predominantly relates to the orders
under the Ceiling Act, it would be worthwhile to consider few
provisions of this Act. This Act which is called the Andhra
Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,
1973 came on the anvil with the assent of the President dated
29. 7 .1972 and was published in. the official Gazette on
G 31. 7 .1972. However, it came into force on 1.1.1975. 'Holding'
is defined in Section 3(i) as under:
"3(i) 'holding' means the entire land held by a personH
(i)
as an owner;
STATE OF AP. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS. 809
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
;. -
(ii)
as a limited owner;
A
~.(
(iii)
as an usufructuary mortgagee;
(iv)
as a tenant;
(v)
who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage 8
by conditional sale or through part
performance of a contract for the sale of land
or otherwise; or in one or more of such
capacities, and the expressions "to hold
land" shall be construed accordingly."
c
Term 'Owner' is defined in Section 3(n) as under:
"3(n) 'owner' includes a person by whom or in whose
favour a trust is created; but does not include a
limited owner; and in the case of any land not held
[D
under ryotwari settlement, a person who is or would
be entitled to the grant of a ryotwari patta or to the
•
registration as an occupant in respect of such land
under any law for the time being in force providing
for the conversion of such land into ryotwari tenure E
and where there is no such law, any person holding
such land immediately before the specified date
otherwise than in any one of the capacities in
items (ii) to (v) Clause (i); but does not include a
limited owner." (Emphasis supplied).
F
Term 'Person' is defined in Section 3(o) as under:
"3(o) 'person' includes an individual, a family unit, a
trustee, a company, a firm, a society or an
association of individuals, whether incorporated or
G
not."
Term 'Tenant' is defined in Section 3(t) as under:-
"3(t) 'tenant' means a person who cultivates by his own
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A
labour or that of any other member of his family or
~
...
by hired labour under his supervision and control,
~
any land belonging to another under a tenancy
;·
agreement, express or implied: and includes a
person who is deemed to be a tenant under any
B
._tenancy law for the time being in force;
Term 'Ceiling Area' is defined under Section 4 as under:
"4.
Ceiling Area:- (1)The ceiling area in the case of
family unit consisting of not more than five members
.,,_
c
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
D
extent of land equal to one standard holding plus
an additional extent of one-fifth of one standard
holding for every such niember in excess of five, so
however, that the ceiling area shall 'not exceed two
sta_ndard holdings.
-t
E
(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 extent of land
equal to one standard holding."
F
Thus, it's a.charging Section.
Section 5 provides the methodology for fixing the standard
holding for different classes of lands and computation thereof.
Section 7 speaks about the transfers of land between
G
24.1.1971 and the notified date, iie, 1.1.1975. It's a complete
scheme as, to which transfer should be treated to be good and.
otherwise. In short, that Section bars the transfers in anticipation
·of and with a view to avoiding or defeating the object of the ·
Ceiling Act. Under Section 8, every person has to give a
H
declaration, whose holding on the notified date together with .
"
STATE OF A.P. & ANR. v. T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS.
811
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
0
any land transferred by him on or after the 24.1.1971, whether
A
by sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement,
surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, and any land in
respect of which a trust has been created by- him on or after
24.1.1971, exceeds the specified limits. Under Section 9, the
Tribunal created under the Ceiling Act has a duty to enquire into
B
and determine the extent of area held or deemed to be held
by the person on the notified date and to declare any land found
in excess of the ceiling area. Section 10 speaks about the
surrender of land in excess. It also provides as to which land
can be surrendered and which land cannot be surrendered, and c
whether the surrender declared by the land holder is to be
surrendered or not, has to be decided by the Tribunal. Subsection 5 specifically provides that it would be open to the
Tribunal to refuse or accept the surrender of any land, which
has been converted into non-agricultural land and is rendered
0
incapable for being used for agricultural purposes. Under
Section 13, a special provision is made for the protected
tenants. The Section provides that where the holding of any
owner includes any land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal
shall, in the first instance, determine whether such land or part
E
thereof has been transferred to the protected tenant under
Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, and if such transfer is made,
such land shall be excluded from the holding of the owner and
included in the holding of such tenant. Sections 15 and 16
speaks about the amount payable in lieu of that land to the land
holder. Section 20 speaks about the appeal and Section 21
about the revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal.
This is the broad picture of the provisions of the Ceiling Act.
F
10. Let us, now, have look on some of the relevant
provisions of the Tenancy Act. It must be remembered that this G
Act came on the legal scene in the year 1950. The term
'Protected' is defined under Section 2(r) as under:-
"2(r) 'Protected' means a person who is deemed to be
a protected tenant under the provisions of this Act.
H
A
0
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
Section 5 provides as to who can be ·deemed to be a
tenant and more or the less, provides that a person lawfully
cultivating to the land belonging to anotlier person, would be
deemed to be a tenant.