Begulla Bapi Raju: Chinnam Nagabhushnam: Chinnam Sivaramprasad: Kaza Seetharamchandra Rao vs State Of A. P. : State Of A. P. : Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur: State Of A. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1983 Supreme(SC) 236

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
Begulla Bapi Raju etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P. Respondent.
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1617, 2631, 3322-23, 3904, 4418, 9796, 9127 of 1979 and 6639-40 of 1978 and 6794, 5121-22 of 1978, 10403 of 1979. 3797 of 1980 & 1183 of 1979 with Writ Petns. Nos. 4789 of 1982 and 4703 of 1978. D/- 23-8-1983.
AND
Chinnam Nagabhushnam and others etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P., Respondent.
WITH
Chinnam Sivaramprasad, Petitioner v. Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur and others, Respondents.
AND
Kaza Seetharamchandra Rao, Petitioner
Versus
State of A.P. and another, Respondents.
A.P. LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT —PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLES 31-A AND 31-B—DEFINITION OF FAMILY UNIT

Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, A.V.Velayudhan Nair, B.Kanta Rao, B.PARTHASARTHY, G.V.Sastry, K.R.CHAUDHARY, M.N.Phadke, P.RAM REDDY, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.D.KHANNA, V.M.Phadke

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 and 21 - Andhra Pradesh Act – Section 8 and 3 (f) - Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act. 1977 – Section 4-A - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 39 - Sale agreement - Partition deed – Possession - Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of the first petitioner - Petitioner No, 2 is still a minor but petitioner No. 3 has become major recently - First Petitioner and third petitioner partitioned their property by metes and bounds by virtue of a registered partition deed dated and since then they are in separate possession of land failing in their respective, shares - By a second partition deed dated first petitioner and second petitioner further partitioned properties that fell to share of first petitioner in first partition between themselves - Third petitioner sold an area of 12.00 acres of village - On he sold an area of 10.22 acres and 10.00 acres of village under sale agreement to and vendee was put in possession - On first petitioner sold an area of 22.63 acres of Pangidigudem village to one B. Appa Rao under sale agreement Ext. A-12 - Again third, petitioner sold an area of 8.00 acres of village under sale agreement - Held, Court have therefore to go by dictionary meaning of term - According to Oxford Dictionary held means : to possess to be owner or holder or tenant of keep possession of; occupy - Thus, held connotes both ownership as well as possession - And in context of the definition it is not possible to interpret the term held only in sense of possession - Brushed these cases aside on the simple around that they are not relevant for decision of question whether right to live includes right to live with human dignity and the decision on Maneka Gandhis case (supra) must be deemed to be the correct exposition of law on the subject - Contention that life includes livelihood within meaning of Art. 21 of Constitution was repelled in these two cases and Maneka Gandhis case did not take into consideration case of Sant Ram (supra) - These cases, therefore, still hold field - Petitioners have been deprived of their holding in form of surplus land but it was only for purpose of giving relief to downtrodden and poor agricultural labourers - Surplus land would vest in State and State in its turn would give it to poor and the downtrodden and thus such a deprivation will be protected under Art. 39 of Directive Principles - Case of Maneka Gandhi (supra) in Court opinion, is not relevant for decision of the point under consideration - For foregoing discussion all the special leave petitions and writ petitions must fail - They are accordingly dismissed.

Judgment

R. B. MISRA, J. :- This batch of special leave petitions and writ Petitions arising out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Andhra Pradesh Act) is directed against the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and raise common questions of law. They are therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. It will suffice to refer to the facts of Special Leave Petition No. 6794 of 1978. Chinnam Nagabhushnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh to bring out the points of controversy in these cases.

2. Chinnam Jaganmohanrao and Chinnam Sivaramprasad, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the first petitioner, Chinnam Nagabhushnam. Petitioner No, 2 is still a minor but petitioner No. 3 has become major recently. The first Petitioner and the third petitioner partitioned their property by metes and bounds by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 12th of April. 1960 and since then they are in separate possession of the land failing in their respective, shares. By a second partition deed dated 11th of April. 1969 the first petitioner and the second petitioner further partitioned the properties that fell to the share of the first petitioner in the first partition between themselves. On 10th January. 1970 the third petitioner sold an area of 12.00 acres of Pangidigudem village to P. Pattabhi. On 10th of April. 1970 he sold an area of 10.22 acres and 10.00 acres of village Pangidigudem under sale agreement Ext. A-9. for Rs. 80.000 to G. Veeraju and the vendee was put in possession. On 12th of June 1970 the first petitioner sold an area of 22.63 acres of Pangidigudem village to one B. Appa Rao under sale agreement Ext. A-12. Again on 16th of June 1970 the third, petitioner sold an area of 8.00 acres of Pangidigudem village to B. Balaram Singh under sale agreement Ext. A-10.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st of January 1975 by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government. By April 1, 1975 all the three petitioners filed separate declarations in accordance with S. 8 of the Act on the footing that the separated minor sons did not constitute a family unit and their holdings cannot be tagged with the holding of the father and that land transferred to outsiders either under agreement of sale or under gift deed should not be included in the holding of the petitioners. The Land Reforms Tribunal. Kovvur, however, treated the holding in question as the holding of the family unit on the finding that divided minor sons also constituted a family unit, and the part of holding transferred to various persons either under agreements of sale or under gift deed formed a part and parcel of the holding of the family unit. Accordingly, on 27th of September, 1976 the Tribunal declared that the family unit was in possession of excess land over the ceiling limit. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, in its turn, allowed the appeal in part. The petitioners still feeling aggrieved filed a revision to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the same. on 7th of July, 1978. The petitioners have now filed the special leave petition to challenge the order of the High Court.

4. Shri M. N. Phadke appearing for the Petitioners has raised the following contentions :

1. A separated minor son is not a member of the family unit and therefore his property cannot be tagged with that of his father.

2. Some of the plots fall in drought-prone area and, therefore, the petitioner should have got an advantage of twelve and a half per cent.

3. The definition of family unit under S. 3 (f) as interpreted by the High Court is also violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

4. Land transferred by the petitioners under various transfer deeds to outsiders and who came in possession also could not be included in the holding of the petitioners.

5. (a) Section 3 (f) of the Andhra Pradesh Act coup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1983 Supreme(SC) 236

Cases Referred (7)