1. Determination of surplus land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 — Claim for exclusion of non-agricultural land after finality of order. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 894
1997(7) Supreme 176
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Konda Venugopala Raju -Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh -Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10821 of 1997
Decided on 8-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : B. Kanta Rao, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972, once the proceedings of determining the surplus land have become final and land owner has been declared to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling area of the land, then the correctness of the same cannot be questioned once over.
Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972, once the proceedings of determining the surplus land have become final and land owner has been declared to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling area of the land, then the correctness of the same cannot be questioned once over.
Subject
Land Reforms - Surrender of Excess Land
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972-Sections 9 & 10-Once order determining surplus land has become final-Person holding land in excess of prescribed ceiling area is liable to surrender excess land held by him-He cannot set up a new plea or plead afresh that declarant s lands are not agricultural land, required to be excluded from his holding.
Held : Once the proceedings have become final and land owner has been declared to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling area of the land, then the correctness of the same cannot be questioned once over. The surrender proceedings are in the nature of execution of the surplus land declared by the authorities. The declarant cannot set up a new plea or plead afresh that declarant s lands are not agricultural land and are, therefore, required to be excluded from his holding. The reason is obvious that under Section 9, once the order of the determining the surplus land has become final, the person holding the land in excess of the prescribed ceiling area is liable to surrender the excess land held by him as enjoined under Section 10 of the Act. At that stage, there is no further provision under the Act to reopen the order passed under Section 9 except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. (Para 5)
(ii) Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972-Sections 9 & 10-Petitioner claimed exclusion of some land stating that cattle sheds, hay racks etc. were existing on that land-On inspection no such hay racks noticed-Declaration became final and confirmed in revision-Subsequently, petitioner set up hay racks etc. and sought to have them excluded-Whether such exclusion is permissible?-(No)-An attempt to reopen order of declaration of surplus land-It is impermissible under the Act. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a land holder can seek exclusion of land as non-agricultural after the order determining surplus land has become final. (Para 4 )
3. The petitioner attempted to reopen a final order by creating non-agricultural structures after the declaration became final; such a plea is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake. (Para 3 , 5 )
4. Once an order determining surplus land under Section 9 of the Act becomes final, it cannot be reopened except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. (Para 5 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Can a land holder seek to exclude land from a surplus determination after the order has become final?
No. Once the order determining surplus land under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 becomes final, the holder is liable to surrender the excess land under Section 10, and the order cannot be reopened. (Para 5 )
7. Under what circumstances can a final order determining surplus land be reopened?
A final order determining surplus land under Section 9 of the Act can only be reopened to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. (Para 5 )
8. Does the principle that vesting is incomplete until compensation is paid allow a holder to challenge the surplus land determination?
No. The court held that such a ratio is inapplicable once the proceedings to determine surplus land have become final; surrender proceedings are essentially the execution of the surplus land declaration. (Para 5 )
ORDER
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on August 7, 1996 in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993.
2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner filed declaration in respect of certain lands under his holding and requested for exclusion of lands from his holding. The primary Tribunal found that the family of the petitioner was holding 0.1358 standard holding of land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. It was confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993, Resultantly, notice in Form VI was issued to the petitioner to surrender the said excess land under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act ). The petitioner filed an I.A. before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru seeking appointment of a Commissioner stating that 5 acres 66 cents of the lands are non-agricultural lands and, therefore, it is required to be excluded from his holding. By order dated March 24, 1990, it rejected the application, but, on revision before the Land Reforms Tribunals in I.A. No. 5/90, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted his report on July 17, 1990, stating that the aforesaid lands were required to be excluded from the holding. He found the finding that it consisted of two hay-racks and a flowing channel (Vagu) etc. The Tribunal considered the same and rejected the petition. On revision, the High Court has upheld the same in the impugned order. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. It is an admitted position that in his declaration, the petitioner claimed exclusion of three acres in survey No. 73 stating that cattle-sheds, hay-racks etc. were existing on the said land. The Advocate-Commissioner appointed inspected the lands and found no such hay-rack in Survey Nos. 97 or 73; however, he found a hay-rack, cattle-shed and two sugarcane heaps in Survey No. 98. Accordingly the said survey number stood excluded from the holding of the family. This fact would clearly indicate that at the time when the declaration was filed by the petitioner as on the notified date, the hay-racks etc. were not existing in the present survey No. 65/1 in an extent of 5 acres. 66 cents in Polasavapalli village, as found by the Commissioner. Since they were found existing, it would be obvious that after the declaration became final and was confirmed by way of dismissal of the civil revision petition by the High Court, the petitioner set up hay-racks etc. and sought to have them excluded.
4. The question, therefore, is: whether such exclusion is permissible in law? The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sreelatha Bhupal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. Therein, the question was as to when the land having vested in the Government must be deemed to have been surrendered by the owner? This Court pointed out that vesting cannot be said to have taken place, if something more is to be done before that. Payment of the compensation is one of the conditions. The lands are said to stand vested from the date the payment of the compensation is made. Until then, the vesting is not complete. It was held as to:-
"It is apparent that in spite of proceedings having come to an end under sub-clause 3 of Section 7 and that the compensation has been determined still the land remains with the holder who is enjoying the benefits out of the land until action under Section 8 is completed."
5. The above ratio in Sreelatha Bhupal case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Once the proceedings have become final and land owner has been declared to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling area of the land, then the correctness of the same cannot be questioned once over. The surrender proceedings are in the nature of execution of the surplus land declared by the authorities. The declarant cannot set up a new plea or plead afresh
