( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to strike down explanation to Section 3 (i) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling and agricultural Holding) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of explanation to Section 3 (i) read with section 13 of the Act, there is discrimination between the tenants of agricultural lands in telangana Area of Andhra Pradesh, who are governed by the provisions of the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Telangana Area ), and the tenants of agricultural lands in Andhra Area, who are governed by the provisions of the Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Andhra Act ) because the benefit being extended to the tenants in Telangana Area is deprived to the tenants in the Andhra Area though they are in the same State and thus Article 14 of the Constitution is violated. By placing strong reliance on Indira Sawhney v. Union of india and others, 1999 (10) Supreme 270, she contended that inasmuch as the preamble to the Constitution emphasizes the principles of equality as the basis of our Constitution and since even constitutional amendments, which amend the basic structure of the constitution would be ultra vires the powers of Legislature, the explanation to Section 3 (i) of the Act being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution i. e. , right to equality is liable to be struck down.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned assistant Government Pleader is since the act is included in IX Schedule of the constitution, validity of any provisions thereof cannot be questioned, by placing strong reliance on Waman Rao v. Union of India, air 1981 SC 271.

( 4 ) SECTION 3 (i) of the Act reads as follows : section 3 (i):- holding means the entire land held by a person. (i) as an owner; (ii) as a limited owner; (iii) as an 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. " so in view of explanation to Section 3 (i), land held by two or more persons in different capacities mentioned in (i) to (v) thereof shall have to be included in the holding of all such persons. Since the Act is made to enforce agrarian reforms, the object of the Legislature, obviously, is that no person should hold more extent of land than that is prescribed by the Act in any capacity mentioned in Section 3 (i) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as Section 13 of the Act lays down that the land in possession of a protected tenant is liable to be excluded from holding of the owner, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the land in possession of the tenant in Andhra Area also, because tenancies of agricultural lands in Andhra areas also are made leases in perpetuity, and so it will not be possible to the owner to evict a tenant in Andhra Area, unless the conditions mentioned in the Act, to seek his eviction are fulfilled. In my considered opinion there is a basic fallacy in the above submission because tenant of agricultural land in Andhra Area, even after the tenancy is made perpetual remains a tenant only but not the owner, but a protected tenant of agricultural land in Telangana area would become the owner of that much extent of land mentioned in Section 38-E of the Telangana Act, if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied, and so his erstwhile landlord ceases to have any interest in such land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document