The land in possession of a person in part performance of a contract for sale cannot be computed in the holding of the transferor as well, for that land is not 'held' by him as an 'owner'.

MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of revision petitions filed under Sec. 21 of the a. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "land Reforms Act") comes up before us on reference by our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J. ,

( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition No. 1395 of 1976 by the Government of andhra Pradesh is directed against the order of the Land reforms Appellate Tribunal, Krishna in L. R. A. C. 26/76. The respondent-declarant had set up six contracts for sale under which he claimed that he had sold various extents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 27, 28, 19/3, 135, 137, 42, 44/2 to 6 to various persons and put them in possession in part performance of the said contracts as detailed hereunder:-

( 3 ) THE Land Reforms Tribunal held that as neither any registered sale-deeds were executed in respect of these sales nor the purchasers had perfected their title by adverse possession the declarant continued to be the owner of those lands and computed the extents covered by the said contracts for sale in the holding of the declarant. The original Tribunal accordingly found the holding of the declarant s family unit to be at 1. 8621 standard holdings. As the declarant s family unit was entitled to one Standard holding towards the ceiling area, the excess over the ceiling area which they were required to surrender under Sec. 10 (1) of the Land Reforms Act was determined at 0. 8612 standard holdings. The declarant carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Tribunal found that in part performance of the contracts for sale Exs. A1, A4, A6, A8 and A10 the transferees were put in possession of the land and as such the declarant-transferor was not entitled to recover possession from them. His remedy was only to file a suit for recovery of the unpaid purchase money, if any. The declarant not being in possession of the land was not holding the land; and the possession of the transferes could not be deemed to be on behalf of the transferor. In that view, the appellate Tribunal directed the exclusion of the extents covered by the said contracts for sale from the declarant s holding. Accordingly the holding of the declarant s family unit was found to be 1. 0576 standard holdings. The declarant s family unit was therefore directed to surrender 0. 0576 standard holding held by it in excess of the ceiling area to which it was entitled. The finding of the appellate Tribunal that the land in possession of a person in part performance of the contract for sale cannot be deemed to be held by the transferor as well and that the same land cannot be included in the holding of both the transferor and the transferree was in consonance withthe judgment of this court in Mohd. Ashrafuddin V. State of A. P. through Land Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad (1976) (II) A. P. LJ. 254 ).

( 4 ) IN this revision petition the learned Government Pleader, mr. Sardar AM Khan, while not challenging the finding of the Appellate tribunal that the tranferees were put in possession of the lands purchased by them under the contracts for sale and that they continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said lands contended before our learned brother Ramachandra Rao. J. , as he is contending now that these lands should be included in the holding of both the transferor and the transferee and that the decision of this court in mohd. Ashrafuddin v. State of A. P. (1976 (II) APLJ. 254) which holds to the contrary requires reconsideration.

( 5 ) OUR learned brother, Ramachandra Rao, J. , while pointing out some of the aspects which required to be considered in this behalf thought it "appropriate that the matter should be authoritatively decided by a Bench of this court". Though in some of the other civil Revision Petitions, certain other questions also arise for con. sideration, this question is common to all the revision petitions. In view of the reference of this question to a Bench, the other Civil revision Petitions also wer