JUDGMENT

MISRA, J.:— The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated the 17th of September, 1976 allowing a civil revision &rising out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The holding of the respondent consisted of survey Nos. 36, 37, 41, 42 and 92, all dry, admeasuring acres 88.46 cents in village Ghotkuri in district Adilabad. It appears that he had transferred 17 acres from survey No. 36 and 11 acres and 48 cents from survey No. 41 to another person under unregistered sale deeds pursuant to an agreement for sale, and had gifted away survey Nos. 37, 42 and 92 to his own son Naimuddin by a document written on a plain paper.

3. Pursuant to a notice under Sec. 8 of the Act the respondent filed a declaration in respect of his holding. In his declaration, however, he did not include in his holding the area transferred by him under two unregistered sale deeds and the aforesaid gift deed.

4. The Land Reforms Tribunal ignoring the aforesaid transfers computed his holding at 1.7692 standard holding. Under the Act he was entitled to possess one standard holding only. He was, therefore, asked to surrender land equivalent to 0.7692 standard holding.

5. The respondent feeling aggrieved took up the matter in appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. He, however, confined his appeal to the land covered-by the two sale deeds in respect of survey Nos. 36 and 41 and submitted to the finding of the Land Reforms Tribunal regarding the gift of survey Nos. 317, 42 and 92. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and ignored the sale deeds executed by the respondent in respect of survey Nos. 36 and 41. The respondent challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal by preferring a revision to the High Court. The High Court in its turn allowed the revision holding that the land transferred under the two sale deeds could not be included in the holding of the respondent for ascertaining the ceiling area. The High Court has given the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the person in possession of the plots pursuant to the contract for sale and treated the land As a part of his holding. The State of Andhra Pradesh has come up in appeal to this Court.

6. The Attorney General appearing for the State has raised only one contention. According to him, on a correct interpretation of the definition of holding as given in cl. (i) of S. 3 of the Act, the land transferred by the respondent will still continue to be a part of his holding. In order to appreciate the contention we have to read the definition of holding? along with the explanation attached to it

"3 (i) holding means the entire land held by a person, -

(i) as an owner;

(ii) as a limited owner;

(iii) as a, usufructuary mortgagee;

(iv) as a tenant;

(v) who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage 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 expression to hold land shall be construed accordingly.

Explanation.- Where the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in any other capacity, such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons."

The term holding takes in its fold land held by various persons in various capacities viz., as an owner, as a limited owner, as a usufructuary mortgagee as a tenant or as a person in possession by virtue of a mortgage 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. The Explanation appended to the definition clearly contemplates that if the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons. Obviously, therefore, the same land can be tak