CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 14890 of 1999 PETITIONER: KANCHERLA MADHUSUDHANA RAO RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/07/2000 BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & DORAISWAMY RAJU JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 Supp(1) SCR 668
The following Order of the Court was delivered ;
This is a Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRP 793 of 1995 dated 23.6.1999.
The matter relates to interpretation of Section 4A of the A.P, Land Reforms
Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973. The petitioner before us is the
landholder who claims that he need not surrender the excess land in his
possession inasmuch as he is a major son and his mother is owning less than
a family holding and because the deficiency in her holding is more than the
excess in the petitioner’s holding.
Section 4A of the Act reads as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything in Section 4, where an individual or an
individual who is a member of a faintly unit, has one or more major sons
any such major son either by himself or together with other members of the
family unit of which he is a member, holds no land or holds an extent of
land less than the ceiling area, then, the ceiling area, in the case of the
said individual or the family unit of which the said individual is a member
computed in accordance with Section 4, shall be increased in respect of
each such major son by an extent of land equal to the ceiling area
applicable to such major son or the family unit of which he is a member, or
as the case may be, by the extent of land by which the land held by such
major son or the family Unit of which he is a member falls short of the
ceiling area.”
The above section was incorporated by the A.P. Amending Act x of 1977. The
Statement of Object and Reasons appended to the Bill read as follows:
“According to the definition of ‘family Unit’ under the Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973), major
sons and major daughters are not to be members of the family unit but are
treated as separate individuals. Consequently, if a major son owns land
either as a separate property or as a sharer in the joint family, the
ceiling limit is applied to such land, and it is not taken into account for
applying the ceiling limit of the father’s family. Representations have
been received mat the implementation of the Act results in hardship to
Muslims and Christians since these communities do no have the system of
joint families and even major sons in these communities do not have a share
in the ancestral property during the life time of he father unlike in the
case of joint Hindu families. It has, therefore, been decided to make
suitable amendment to the Act to remove this hardship and equalise the
includence of the Act on all communities irrespective of their personal
laws.”
In our view, the effect of Section 4A is as follows. If the extent of land
owned by the members of a family unit (i.e. the declarant, his or her
spouse and minor children) exceeds the ceiling area, in case the declarant
has a major son on the notified date i.e. 1.1.1975, then-in case the major
son does not own any agricultural land-the family unit of his parent (the
declarant) shall be entitled to the benefit of an additional unit of
ceiling area. In case the major son owns land, within the ceiling area, but
upto a limit (say) 0.40 units then the family unit of is parent (declarant)
shall have the benefit of an extra 0.60 unit of ceiling area. Broadly, this
is the manner in which the provisions of Section 4A work out.
But the petitioner before us is not the parent but the major son. He is
seeking to apply the section in the reverse fashion as was held permissible
in 5. Pandya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 1 APLJ 9. That case no
doubt supports the petitioner. There the family unit of the parent did not
own excess land, but the major son had excess land. The learned judge
interpreted Section 4A as applicable to such a case and held that inasmuch
as the excess of the major son was less then the deficiency of the parent,
the major son need not surrender his excess land.
But the above judgment of the learned Single Judge was overruled in P.K.R.
Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1980) 1 APLJ 307. The Division Bench
explained section 4A (at p.310) as follows:
“in our view, it is quit manifest from the content of the Section extracted
supra that the Legislature positively conferred the benefit on the
individual who is a parent and the increase irresistibly is in the holding
of the parent, should there be any deficit in the holding of the major son.
The Bench also observed that so far as the converse case is concerned (i.e.
where the major son has excess and the parent’s family unit is not in
excess), it is not covered by section 4A and observed as follows:
“It is only the converse case that is conspicuous not only from the content
of the Section but also from the object with which it has been enacted.
In Pandya’s case decided by the learned single judge, it was found that the
family unit of the major son had an excess 0.2668 family holding and it was
held that he need not surrender the excess because his mother’s family unit
had a deficiency of more than 0.2668. This method of computation was not
accepted by the Division Bench in P.K.R. Raju’s case as not falling within
the content of section 4A. In our view, the decision of the Division Bench
in P.K.R. Raju ‘s case is correct and the decision of the learned Single
Judge in Pandya’s case was rightly overruled.
In the present order, the High Court applied the judgment of the Division
Bench and held that the declarant, the major son, who is in excess cannot
refuse to surrender the excess land and that he cannot set off his excess
against the deficiency in the holding of his mother, We, therefore, do not
find any error in the judgment of the High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed.