Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.MUKTADAR, O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, PUNNAIAH, S.MADHUSUDAN RAO, S.OBUL REDDY
Tumati Rangayya etc. - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-13-77
ANDHRA PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - REPEAL BY IMPLICATION - REPUGNANCY - SEVERABILITY - BASIC FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION - AMENDMENT OF ACT - TRIBUNALS - CREATION OF - VALIDITY - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - PROCEDURE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1961. The Act proved ineffective and did not serve the purpose for which it was designed. So, in 1973, with much flourish and fanfare, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1 of 1973, claimed to be more effective than its predecessor. The Act was preceded by Act 13 of 1972 and earlier by an Ordinance dated 2-5-1972 banning alienation of agricultural land. Though Act 1 of 1973 was passed with much attendant publicity on 1-1-1973, it came into force only on 1-1-1975, the date notified by the State Government under S. 1 (3) of the Act. Very soon the constitutional validity of the Act was impeached on several grounds. A Full Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the Act in M. Venkata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 Andh Pra 315. Despite the fact that the judgment of this Court was rendered on 11-4-1975, there has been considerable delay in the implementation of the Act and the weaker sections of the people, whose hopes were raised and to whom many promises were made by the Act, have yet, in most cases, to reap the promised benefits. Meanwhile, it was discovered that S. 4 of the Act had unequal incidence on Hindus on the one hand and Muslims and Christians on the other because the latter had no system of joint family and none had a right by birth. In order to remove this hostile discrimination, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted Act 8 of 1977 and introduced S. 4-A into Act 1 of 1973. More about it later.
Finding of the Court:
The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 are inapplicable to vacant land in urban agglomerations within the meaning of those expressions as defined in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Issues: 1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is repugnant to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976? 2. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 offends some basic features of the Constitution? 3. Whether S. 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is ultra virus as it offends Art. 15 (1) of the Constitution by discriminating on the ground of sex? 4. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is incapable of being applied to the Scheduled areas as land in Scheduled areas had remained unsurveyed and unsettled till now? 5. Whether there was no properly constituted Tribunal in the State and that the Additional Revenue Divisional Officers who were discharging the functions of Tribunals had no legal authority to do so? 6. Whether the creation for Tribunals consisting of Revenue Officers subordinate in all respects to the board of Revenue and the State Government was destructive of the very principle of separation of powers and was, therefore, void? 7. Whether the State Legislature acted beyond its competence in creating Tribunals other than Civil Courts? 8. Whether the creation of the Appellate Tribunal under S. 20 of the Act was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is repugnant to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the extent of the land covered by both the definitions of land in the State Act and the definition of vacant land in the Central Act. 2. No, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 does not offend any basic features of the Constitution. 3. No, S. 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is not ultra virus as it does not offend Art. 15 (1) of the Constitution by discriminating on the ground of sex. 4. No, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is not incapable of being applied to the Scheduled areas as land in Scheduled areas had remained unsurveyed and unsettled till now. 5. No, there was a properly constituted Tribunal in the State and the Additional Revenue Divisional Officers who were discharging the functions of Tribunals had the legal authority to do so. 6. No, the creation for Tribunals consisting of Revenue Officers subordinate in all respects to the board of Revenue and the State Government was not destructive of the very principle of separation of powers and was, therefore, not void. 7. No, the State Legislature did not act beyond its competence in creating Tribunals other than Civil Courts. 8. No, the creation of the Appellate Tribunal under S. 20 of the Act was not illegal.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) IN 1961, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1961. The Act proved ineffective and did not serve the purpose for which it was designed. So, in 1973, with much flourish and fanfare, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1 of 1973, claimed to be more effective than its predecessor. The Act was preceded by Act 13 of 1972 and earlier by an Ordinance dated 2-5-1972 banning alienation of agricultural land. Though Act 1 of 1973 was passed with much attendant publicity on 1-1-1973, it came into force only on 1-1-1975, the date notified by the State Government under S. 1 (3) of the Act. Very soon the constitutional validity of the Act was impeached on several grounds. A Full Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the Act in M. Venkata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 Andh Pra 315. Despite the fact that the judgment of this Court was rendered on 11-4-1975, there has been considerable delay in the implementation of the Act and the weaker sections of the people, whose hopes were raised and to whom many promises were made by the Act, have yet, in most cases, to reap the promised benefits. Meanwhile, it was discovered that S. 4 of the Act had unequal incidence on Hindus on the one hand and Muslims and Christians on the other because the latter had no system of joint family and none had a right by birth. In order to remove this hostile discrimination, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted Act 8 of 1977 and introduced S. 4-A into Act 1 of 1973. More about it later.
( 2 ) WHILE going ahead with the imposition of ceiling on holding of agricultural lands, both the Houses of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature also passed a resolution authorising Parliament to regulate by law "the imposition of a ceiling on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto". The resolution was passed by the Houses on 7th and 8/04/1972 in pursuance of Cl. (1) of Art. 252 of the Constitution. This was followed by an Ordinance dated 2-5-1972 and the Andhra Pradesh Act 12 of 1972, banning alienation of vacant land in urban areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the resolutions passed by the Legislatures of Andhra Pradesh and some other States, Parliament, on 17-2-1976 enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976 ).
( 3 ) THE constitutional validity of Andhra Pradesh Act 1 of 1973 is once more under attack, this time on the ground that its provisions are repugnant to the provisions of Central Act 33 of 1976. Other points, some touching on the constitutional validity of the Act and others not, have also been raised. We shall consider the issues raised one by one.
( 4 ) SRI. P. A. Choudary, learned counsel, who led the attack for the petitioners submitted that the source of power for both the legislations was Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, that in relation to land which was agricultural land within the meaning of the State Act but not agricultural land within the meaning of the Central Act there was clear repugnancy between the two Acts, that as a result of the repugnancy the definition of agricultural land in the State Act would have to be struck down and that if that was done there would be nothing of substance left in the State Act.
( 5 ) NOW, the questions to be considered are whether there is any repugnancy or inconsistency between the provisions of the State Act and those of the Central Act and, if there is, what is the effect?
( 6 ) FIRST, what is repugnancy or inconsistency in relation to laws made by a Federal and a State Legislature? In Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 676, Bhagwati J. , referred to the three tests suggested by Nicholas in his Australian Constitution, 2nd Edition p. 303:-" (1) There
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
