Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13
PETITIONER:
TUMATI VENKAISH ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/05/1980
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1980 AIR 1568 1980 SCR (3)1143
1980 SCC (4) 295
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1981 SC 271 (36)
E 1983 SC1073 (7,10)
R 1989 SC1737 (5)
ACT:
The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act l of 1973, as amended by the
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977-Section 4A Constitutional
validity of-Whether, by reason of the enactment of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (Central Act), the
Andhra Pradesh Act had become void and inoperative. as being
outside the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature-Resolutions dated 7th April 1972 and 8th April
1972 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council and
the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly under Art. 252 (1)
of the Constitution
HEADNOTE:
The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act I of 1973 was enacted on 1st of
January 1973. Though a Full Bench of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh when challenged by some of the land holders
held by its judgment dated 11th April, 1973, the Act to be
constitutionally valid; yet the said Act was not brought
into force till 1st January 1975. In ]977, the Act was
amended with retrospective effect from 1st January 1975 by
the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings) Amendment Act 1977. As soon ns the Amending Act
was passed, the land holders once again filed writ petitions
in the High Court, challenging the constitutional validity
of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The main ground, inter alia, was
that by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Central Act, 1976, the Andhra Prdesh Act had
become void and inoperative.
A Full Bench of five judges of the High Court held that
the enactment of the Central Act did not have the effect of
invalidating the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act, but since
the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act were repugnant to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13
the provisions of the Central Act so far as concerned land
satisfying both the definition of "land" in the Andhra
Pradesh Act and the definition of "vacant land", in the
Central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Act was held not applicable
to "vacant lands" falling within the ambit of the Central
Act. ave for this limited relief, the High Court dismissed
the writ petitions in all other respects. Hence the appeals
by the land holders after obtaining special leave from this
Court. Writ Petitions were also filed directly in this Court
by some of the land holders.
Dismissing the appeals, and writ petitions, the Court
^
HELD :1. Article 246 of the Constitution of India
carves out an exception derogating from the normal
distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the
States. The effect of passing of resolutions by the Houses
of Legislature of two or more States under this
constitutional provision is that Parliament which has
otherwise no power to legislate with respect to a matter,
1144
except as provided in Articles 249 and 250, becomes entitled
to legislate with regard to such matter and the State
Legislature passing the resolutions cease to have power to
make law relating to that matter. The resolutions operate as
abdication or surrender of the powers of the State
Legislatures with respect to the matter which is the subject
of the resolutions and such matter is placed entirely in the
hands of Parliament and Parliament alone can then legislate
with respect to each. It is as if such matter is lifted out
of list II and placed in List I of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution. A plain natural construction of the
language of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 252 makes this
position clear. It was in pursuance of clause (1) of Article
352 that a resolution was passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Council on 7th April, 1972 to the effect that
"the imposition of ceiling of urban immovable property and
acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and
all matters concerned therewith or ancillary and incidental
thereto should be regulated in the State or Andhra Pradesh
by Parliament by law" and on identical resolution in the
same terms was passed on the next day by the Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Assembly. The result was that at the date when
the Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, Parliament alone was
competent to legislate with respect to ceiling on urban
immovable property and acquisition of such property in
excess of the ceiling and all connected, ancillary or
incidental matters, and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature stood
denuded of its power to legislate on that subject. [1149 A,
E-H, 1150 A-C]
Union of India v. V. B. Choudhary, 19791 3 SCR 802;
followed.
2. Under the powers thus transferred Parliament enacted
the Central Act with a view to imposing ceiling on vacant
land, other land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture,
in an urban. agglomeration. The Central Act imposes a
ceiling on holding of land in urban agglomeration other than
land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture and
agriculture in this connection includes horticulture, but
does not include raising of grass, daily farming, poultry
farming, breeding live-stock and such cultivation or the
growing of such plants as may be prescribed by the Rules,
and, moreover, in order to fall within the exclusion, the
land must be entered in the revenue cr land record before
the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture and must
also not have been specified in the master plan for a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13
purpose other than agriculture. [119 C-F]
3. It is no doubt true that if the Andhra Pradesh Act
seeks to impose ceiling on land falling within an urban
agglomeration, it would be outside rh art of its legislative
competence, because it cannot provide for imposition of
ceiling on urban immovable property. But the only urban
agglomerations in the State of Andhra Pradesh recognised in
the Central Act were those referred to in Section 2(n) (A)
(i) and there can be no doubt that so far as these urban
agglomerations are concerned, it was not within the
legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to
provide for imposition of ceiling on land situate within
these urban agglomerations. But, the Andhra Pradesh Act is
not out side the legislative competence of the Andhra
Pradesh Legislative in so far as lands situate in the other
areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh are concerned. Any
other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh with a population
of more than one lakh could be notified as an urban
agglomeration under section 2(n) (A) (ii) of the Central Act
but until it is so notified would not be an urban
agglomeration and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would have
legislative competence to provide for imposition of ceiling
on
1145
land situate within such area. No sooner such area is
notified to be an urban agglomeration, the Central Act would
apply in relation to land situate within such area, but
until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would continue to
be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land.
The Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975
and it was with reference to this date that the surplus
holding of land in excess of the ceiling area was required
to be determined and if there was any surplus it was to be
surrendered to the State Government. Therefore, in an area
other than that comprised in the urban agglomerations
referred to in section 2(n)(A) (i), land held by a person in
excess of the ceiling area would be liable to be determined
as on 1st January 1975 under the Andhra Pradesh Act and only
land within the ceiling area will be allowed to remain with
him. It is only in respect of land remaining with a person
whether an individual or a family after the operation of the
Andhra Pradesh Act, that the Central Act would apply if and
when the area in question is notified to be an urban
agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the Central Act.
[1155 G-H, 1156 A-G]
Merely because an area may possibly in the future be
notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n) (A)
(ii) of the Central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature
would not cease to have competence to legislate with respect
to ceiling on land situate in such area even though it is
not an urban agglomeration at the date of the enactment of
the Andhra Pradesh Act. Undoubtedly, when an area is
notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n) (A)
(ii), the Central Act would apply to land situate in such
area and the Andhra Pradesh Act would cease to have
application but by that time the Andhra Pradesh Act would
have already operated to determine the ceiling on holding of
land falling within the definition in section 3(j) of that
Act and situate within such area. Therefore, the whole of
the Andhra Pradesh Act is neither ultravires nor void as
being outside the area of legislative competence of the
Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It is only in respect of land
situate within the urban agglomerations referred to in
section 2(n) (A)(i) of the Central Act that the Andhra
Pradesh Act would not apply but it would be fully applicable
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13
in respect of land situate in all the other areas of the
State of Andhra Pradesh. [1156 G-X 1157 A-B]
4. A divided minor cannot be excluded from the ’family
unit’ as defined in section 3(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Act.
That would be flying in the face of sections 3(f) and 4 of
the Andhra Pradesh Act.
It is true that a partition affected prior to 2nd May
1972 is not invalidated by the Andhra Pradesh Act and
therefore any property which comes to the share of a divided
minor son would in law belong to him and would not be liable
to be regarded as part of joint family property. But under
the definition of family unit in section 2(f) the divided
minor son would clearly be included in the family unit and
by reason of section 4 his land whether self-acquired or
obtained on partition would be liable to be clubbed with the
land held by the other members of the family unit. The land
obtained by the divided minor son on partition would be
liable to be aggregated with the lands of other members of
the family unit not because the partition is invalid but
because the land held by him howsoever acquired is liable to
be clubbed together with the lands of others for the purpose
of applying the ceiling area to the family unit. [1157 C, F-
HI 14-610 SCI/80
1146
5. The Andhra Pradesh Act is admittedly an agrarian
reform legislation and it is protected against challenge on
the ground of infraction of Article 14, 19 and 31 by the
protective umbrella of Article 31A. [1158 B-C]
6. The definition of ’family unit’ is nor violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution by including ’ a minor son in
the family unit while excluding a major son from it. [1158
A]
Seth Nand Lal v. State of Haryana. [1980] 3 SCR p. 1181
followed.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14-32,
902, 879, 1130-32, 1121, 1172, 1215, 1201, 1127, 1128, 1222,
1224, 1223, 1275, 1129, 1523, 1539, 1280, 863, 1361, 1323,
1375, 1621, 1374, 1410, 1628, 2117, 1961, 1917, 1918, 1919,
1920 & 2290 of 1978 3447 3450/79.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgments and order
dated 13.10.1977 etc. etc. Of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Writ Petition No. 1872/77 etc. etc.
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos: 3973, 3998, 3836, 4198, 4199, 4200,
4210, 4263, 4317, 4318, 4414, 4256, 4537 and 4500 of 1978.
F. S. Nariman, K. Krishna Rao and K. Rajendra Choudhary
far the Appellants in CA Nos. 14 to 23, 25-29, 1223-1224
1628/78, 3447 and 3449/79.
A. Subba Rao for the Appellants in CA No. 1126 & WP
Nos. 3973, 4198, 4199, 4200, 4317, 4318 4210/78.
A. V. V. Nair for the Appellants in CA Nos. 1215, 1361,
2117, 1286 and W.P. No. 1374/78.
G. S. Rama Rao for the Appellants in CA No. 1121 &
Petitioners in WP Nos. 4256 and 3836/78.
Vepa Sarathi and B. Ranta Rao for the
Appellants/Petitioners in CA Nos. 24, 30, 32, 1172, 1127,
1128, 1129, 1261, 1323 1275/ 78 and WP Nos. 4263, 4500
4537/78.
S. Venkata Reddy and G. Narsimulu for the Appellants in
CA Nos. 31, 902, 879, 1130-32, 1410, 1621, 1917-20, 1961/78
& 1373/78.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13
A. K. Ganguli for the Appellants in CAs 1222 and
863/78.
R A. V. Rangam for the Petitioners in WP No. 3998/78.
S. Balakrishan for the Petitioners in WP 4414/78.
V.S. Desai and A. Subba Rao for the
Applicant/Intervener.
1147
K. K. Venugopal Addl. Sol. Genl., Ram Chandra Reddy
Adv. A Genl. A. P. and B. Parthasarthy for the appearing
respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
BHAGWATI, J.-These appeals by special leave and the
writ petitions represent a last but desperate attempt by
the; class of land-holders in Andhra Pradesh to defeat an
agrarian reform legislation enacted by the State or the
benefit of the weaker sections of community. It is indeed a
matter of regret that a statute intended to strike at
concentration of land in the hands of a few and to act as a
great equaliser by reducing inequality in holding of land
between the haves and the have-nots should have practically
remained unimplemented for a period of over seven years.
Unfortunately, this is the common fate of much of our social
welfare legislation.
We can boast of some of the finest legislative measures
calculated to ameliorate the socio-economic conditions of
the poor and the deprived and to reach social and economic
justice to them, but regret-ably, a large part of such
legislation has remained merely on paper, and the benefits
of such legislation have not reached the common man to any
appreciable extent. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1 of 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the Andhra Pradesh Act) which is challenged
in the present appeals was enacted by the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature on 1st January 1973. Soon after its enactment,
the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Act was
challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on various
grounds, but a full Bench of the High Court negatived the
challenge and held the Andhra Pradesh Act to be
constitutionally valid. Though this judgment was delivered
by the High Court as early as 11th April, 1973, no effective
steps for implementation of the Andhra Pradesh Act could be
taken, since the Andhra Pradesh Act merely remained on the
statute book and for some inexplicable reason, it was. not
brought into force until 1st January 1975. Even after the
Andhra Pradesh Act was brought into force, not much
enthusiasm was shown be the Government in implementing its
provisions and in the mean while, it was found necessary to
amend the legislation and hence the Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act
1977 was enacted with retrospective effect from 1st January
1975 and by this amending Act certain amendments were made
which included inter alia the introduction of section 41A.
We shall presently refer to the relevant provisions of the
amended Andhra Pradesh Act, but before we do so, it is
necessary to point out that as soon as the amending Act was
passed, another round
1148
of litigation was started by the landholders by filing writ
petitions in the High Court challenging once again the
constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Act. There
were several grounds on which the constitutional validity
was challenged but the main ground was that by reason of the
enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act 1976
(hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), the Andhra
Pradesh Act had become void and inoperative. Certain other
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13
questions involving the interpretation of the provisions of
the Andhra Pradesh Act were also raised in some of the writ
petitions, but they too need not be mentioned here, because
in the course of the hearing we made it clear to the parties
that we would examine only the constitutional validity of
the Andhra Pradesh Act and other questions could be agitated
by the landholders in the appeals filed by them against the
orders determining surplus land. It was pointed out to us
that some of the landholders had not filed appeals within
the prescribed time and grave injustice would therefore
result to them if these question, were not decided by us.
But the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the State family stated before us that if appeals
have been filed beyond time or are filed within a month of
disposal of these appeals, the delay in filing the appeals
would be condoned. Turning to the constitutional challenge
which in those days was required to be decided by a full
Bench of 5 Judges of the High Court, it was held that the
enactment of the Central Act did not have the effect of
invalidating the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act, but since
the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act were repugnant to
the provisions of the Central Act so far as concerned land
satisfying both the definition of "land" in the Andhra
Pradesh Act and the definition of "vacant land" in the
Central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Act was held not applicable
to "vacant land" falling within the ambit of the Central
Act. The High Court accordingly granted a declaration to
this effect to the landholders, but save for this limited
relief, dismissed the writ petitions in all other respects,
since in the opinion of the High Court there was no
substance in any of the other contentions raised on behalf
of the landholders. The landholders thereupon preferred the
present appeals after obtaining special leave from this
Court.
The principal contention urged on behalf of the
landholders in support of the appeals was that the Andhra
Pradesh Act was ultra vires and void as being outside the
legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature.
This contention was based on two resolutions, one dated 7th
April 1972 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council
and the other dated 8th April 1972 passed by the Andhra
Pradesh Legislative Assembly under clause (1) of Article
1149
252 of the Constitution. This Article carves out an
exception derogating from the normal distribution of
legislative powers between the Union and the States under
Article 246 and is in the following terms:
Art. 252(1) : If it appears to the legislatures of
two or more States to be desirable that any of the
matters with respect to which Parliament has no power
to make laws for the States except as provided in
Articles 249 and 250 should be regulated in such States
by Parliament by law, and if resolutions to that effect
are passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of
those States, it shall be lawful for Parliament to pass
an Act for regulating that matter accordingly, and any
Act so passed shall apply to such States and to any
other State be which it is adopted afterwards by
resolution passed in that behalf by the House or, where
there are two Houses, by each of the Houses of the
Legislature of that State.
(2) An Act so passed by Parliament may be amend-
ed or repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or
adopted in like manner but shall not, as respects any
State to which it applies, be amended or repealed by an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13
Act of the Legislature of that State."
The effect of passing of resolutions be the Houses of
Legislature of two or more States under this constitutional
provision is that Parliament which has otherwise power to
legislate with respect to a matter, except as provided in
Articles 249 and 250, becomes entitled to legislate with
respect to such matter and the State Legislatures passing
the resolutions cease to have power to make law relating to.
that matter. The resolutions operate as abdication or
surrender of the powers of the State Legislatures with
respect to the matter which is the subject of the
resolutions and such matter is placed entirely in the hands
of Parliament and Parliament alone can then legislate with
respect to it. It is as if such matter is lifted out of List
II and placed in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. This would seem to be quite clear on a plain
natural construction of the language of clauses (1) and (2)
of Article 252 and no authority. is necessary in support of
it, but if any was wanted, it may be found in the decision
of a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in Union of
India v. V. V. Chaudhary in fact the same Bench as the
present one-where an identical view has been taken. It was
in pursuance of clause (l) of this Article that a Resolution
1150
was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council on 7th
April 1972 to the effect that "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 and incidental thereto should be regulated in
the State of Madhya Pradesh by Parliament by law and an
identical resolution in the same terms was passed on the
next day by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Assembly. Similar
resolutions were also passed by the Houses of Legislature of
some other States, though there is no material to show as to
when they were passed. It was however common ground that at
best some of these resolutions were passed prior to the
enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The result was that at
the date when the Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, Parliament
alone was competent to legislate with respect to ceiling on
urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in
excess of the ceiling and all connected, ancillary or
incidental matters, and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature stood
denuded of its power to legislate on that subject.
Now the Andhra Pradesh Act, as its long title shows,
was enacted to consolidate and damned the law relating to
the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings and taking
over of surplus land and matter connected therewith. On its
plain terms, it applies to land situate in any part of
Andhra Pradesh. Section 3(f) creates an artificial unit
called ’family unit’ by defining it as follows:
"Sec. 3(f) "family unit" means-
(i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse
or spouses, such individual, the spouse or
spouses and their minor sons and their
unmarried minor daughters; if any;
(ii) in the case of an individual who has no
spouse such individual and his or her minor
sons and unmarried minor daughters;
(iii) in the case of an individual who is a
divorced husband and who has not remarried,
such individual and his minor sons and
unmarried minor daughters, whether in his
custody or not; and
(iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are
both dead, their minor sons and unmarried
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13
minor daughters.
Explanation-Where a minor son is married, his
wife and their offspring, if any, shall also
be deemed to be members of the family unit of
which the minor son is a member:
1151
The term "land" is defined in section 3(j) to mean
"land which A is used or is capable of being used for
purposes of agriculture, or for purposes ancillary thereto,
including horticulture, forest land, pasture land, waste
land, plantation and tope; and includes land deemed to be
agricultural land under this Act". Explanation I to this
definition enacts a rebuttable presumption that land held
under Ryotwari settlement shall, unless the contrary is
proved, be deemed to be ’land’ under the Andhra Pradesh Act.
Section 3(o) defines ’person’ as including inter alia an
individual and a family unit. Section 10 is the key section
which imposes ceiling on the holding of land by providing
that if the extent of the holding of a person is in excess
of the ceiling area, the person shall be liable to surrender
the land held in excess. If therefore an individual or a
family unit holds land in excess of the ceiling area, the
excess would have to be surrendered to the State Government.
But the question then arises, what is the ceiling area above
which a person cannot hold land. The answer is provided by
section 4 which reads as follows:-
"Sec. 4(1) The ceiling area in the case of a
family unit consisting of not more than five members
shall be an & extent of land equal to one standard
holding.
(2) The ceiling area in the case of a family unit
consisting of more than five members shall be an extent
of land equal to one standard holding plus an
additional extent of one-fifth of one standard holding
for every such member in excess of five, so however
that the ceiling area shall not exceed two standard
holdings.
(3) The ceiling area in the case of every
individual who is not a member of a family unit, and in
the case of any other person shall be an extent of land
equal to one standard holding.
Explanation:-In the case of a family unit, the
ceiling area shall be applied to the aggregate of the
lands held by all the members of the family unit".
It will thus be seen that the ceiling area in the case of an
individual who is not a member of a family unit is
equivalent to one standard holding and so also in the case
of a family unit with not more than five members, the
ceiling area is the same, but if the family unit consists of
more than five members, the ceiling area would stand
increased by one-fifth of one standard holding for every
additional member of the family unit, subject however to the
maximum limit of 2 standard holdings. When the ceiling area
is applied to the holding of a
1152
family unit, the Explanation requires that the lands held by
all the members of the family unit shall be aggregated for
the purpose of computing, the holding of the family unit.
Where, therefore, there in a family unit consisting of
father, mother and three minor sons or daughters, the lands
held by all these persons would have to be clubbed together
and then the ceiling area applied to the aggregate holding.
There is no distinction made in the definition of ’family
unit’ between a divided minor son and an undivided minor
son. Both stand on the same footing and a divided minor son
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13
is as much a member of the family unit as an undivided minor
son, and consequently the lands held by a divided minor son
would have to be included in the holding of the family unit
for the purpose of application of the ceiling area. Section
7 invalidates certain transfers of land and provides for
inclusion of such lands in the holding of an individual or a
family unit. Then there is a provision in section 8 for
furnishing a declaration in respect of his holding by every
person whose land exceeds the ceiling area and the Tribunal
is required by section 9 to hold an enquiry. and pass an
order determining the land held in excess of the ceiling
area. Such land has to be surrendered by the person holding
the land and on such surrender, the Revenue Divisional
officer is empowered under section 11 to take possession of
the land which thereupon vests in the State Government free
from all encumbrances. Section 14 provides inter alia that
the land vested in the State Government shall be allotted
for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers. village
artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-
sites or transferred to the weaker sections of the people
dependent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture/or for
purposes ancillary thereto in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Rules, subject to a proviso that as far as
practicable not less than one-half of the total extent of
land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or
transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes. Section 15 enacts a provision for payment
of compensation for land vested in the State Government at
the rates specified in the Second Schedule. These are the
only relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act which
need to be referred to for the purpose of the present
appeals.
We may now turn to examine the relevant provisions of
the Central Act. This Act was enacted by Parliament pursuant
to the authority conferred upon it by the resolutions passed
by the Houses of legislature of several States including the
State of Andhra Pradesh under clause (1) of Article 252. It
received the assent of the President on 17th February 1 976
and as its long title and recital shows it was enacted to
provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant
1153
land is urban agglomerations for the acquisition of such
land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the
construction of buildings on such land and for matters
connected therewith, with a view to preventing the
concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons
and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to
bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban
agglomerations to sub-serve the common good. We shall refer
to a few material provisions of this Act. Section 2(a) (i)
defines "appointed day" to mean in relation to any State to
which this Act applies in the first instance which includes
the State of Andhra Pradesh the date of introduction of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill, 1976 in
Parliament. This was the Bill which culminated in the Act
and it was introduced in Parliament on 28th January 1976.
Consequently, this date would be the ’appointed day’ for the
purpose of applicability of the Act to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The definition of "family" in section 2 (f) is
materially in the same terms as the definition of "family
unit" in the Andhra Pradesh Act. Then follow two important
definitions which needed to be set out in extenso. The word
"person" is defined in section 2(i) as including inter alia
an ’individual’ and the ’family’. Section 2(n) defines
"urban agglomeration" in the following terms:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13
"Sec.2(n) (A) in relation to any State of Union
territory specified in column (1) of Schedule 1, means-
(i) the urban agglomeration specified in the
corresponding entry in column (2) thereof and
includes the peripheral area specified in the
corresponding entry in column (3) thereof;
and
(ii) any other area which the State Government
may, with the previous approval of the
Central Government, having regard to its
location, population (population being more
than one lakh) and such other relevant
factors as the circumstance of the case may
require, by notification in the official
Gazette, declare to be an urban agglomeration
and any agglomeration so declared shall be
deemed to belong to category D in that
Schedule and the peripheral area there for
shall be one kilometre;
(B) xx xx xx xx xx"
The term ’urban land’ is defined in section 2(o) to mean:-
Sec. 2(o)(i): any land situated within the limits of an
urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master
plan; or
1154
(ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or
where the master plan does not refer to any
land as urban land, any land within the
limits of an urban agglomeration and situated
in any area included within the local limits
of a municipality (by whatever name called),
a notified area committee, a town area
committee, a city and town committee, a small
town Committee, a cantonment board or a
panchayat, but does not include any such land
which is mainly used for the purpose of
agriculture.
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause and clause
(q),-
(A) "agriculture" includes horticulture, but does
not include-
(i) raising of grass,
(ii) dairy farming,
(iii) poultry farming,
(iv) breeding of live-stock, and
(v) such cultivation, or the growing of such
plant, as may be prescribed.
(B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly
for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not
entered in the revenue or land records before the
appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture;
(C) notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be
mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land
has been specified in the master plan for a purpose
other than agriculture; "
Section 2(q) gives a definition of "vacant land" by
providing that "vacant land" means, subject to certain
exceptions which are not material, land not being land
mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban
agglomeration. Section 3 is the rebuttal section which
imposes ceiling on holding of ’vacant land’ by providing
that:
"Sec. 3. Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
on and from the commencement of this Act, no person
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13
shall be n entitled to hold any vacant land in excess
of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this
Act applies under sub-section (2) of section 1."
1155
Section 4 divides urban agglomeration into categories
A, B, C and D lays down different ceiling limits for these
different categories. Then there is a provision in section 5
invalidating in certain circumstances the transfer of vacant
land made at any time during the period commencing on the
appointed day and ending with the commencement of the Act.
The procedure for determining "vacant land" held in excess
of the ceiling limit is laid down in sections 6 to 9 and
section 10 enacts a provision for acquisition of such land
held in excess of such limit. Section 23 provides for
disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act and it
empowers the State Government to allot such vacant land to
"any person for any purpose relating to or in connection
with any industry or for providing residential accommodation
of such type as may be approved by the State Government to
the employees of any industry. It will thus be seen that the
Central Act imposes a ceiling on holding of land in urban
agglomeration other than land which is mainly used for the
purpose of agriculture and agriculture in this connection
includes horticulture, but does not include raising of
grass, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding live-stock
and cultivation or the growing of such plants as may be
prescribed by the Rules, and, moreover, in order to fall
within the exclusion, the land must be entered in the
revenue or land record before the appointed day as for the
purpose of agriculture and must also not have been specified
in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture.
Now, as we have already pointed out above, the Andhra
Pradesh Legislature had, at the time when the Andhra Pradesh
Act was enacted, no power to legislate with respect to
ceiling on urban immovable property. That power stood
transferred to parliament and as a first step towards the
eventual imposition of ceiling on immovable property of
every other description, the Parliament enacted the Central
Act with a view to imposing ceiling on vacant land, other
than land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an
urban agglomeration. The argument of the landholders was
that the Andhra Pradesh Act sought to impose ceiling on land
in the whole of Andhra Pradesh including land situate in
urban agglomeration and since the concept of agglomeration
defined in section’ 2(n) of the Central Act was an expensive
concept and any area with an existing or future population
of more than one lakh could be notified to be an urban
agglomeration, the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra
vires and void as being outside the legislative competence
of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. This argument plausible
though it may seem, in our opinion, is unsustainable. It is
no doubt true that if the Andhra Pradesh Act seeks to impose
ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration, it
would be outside the area of its legislative competence,
because it
1156
cannot provide for imposition of ceiling on urban immovable
property. But the only urban agglomerations in the State of
Andhra Pradesh recognised in the Central Act were those
referred to in section 2(n) (A) (ii) and there can be no
doubt that so far as these urban agglomerations are
concerned, it was not within the legislative competence of
the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to provide for imposition of
ceiling on land situate within these urban agglomerations.
It is, however, difficult to see how the Andhra Pradesh Act
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13
could be said to be outside the legislative competence of
the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in so far as land situate in
the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned.
We accept that any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh
with a population of more than one lakh could be notified as
an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the
Central Act but until it is so notified it would not be an
urban agglomeration and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would
have legislative competence to provide for imposition of
ceiling on land situate within such area. No sooner such
area is notified to be an urban agglomeration, the Central
Act would apply in relation to land situate within such
area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would
continue to be applicable to determine the ceiling on
holding of land. It may be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh
Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with
reference to this date the surplus holding of land in excess
of the ceiling area was required to be determined and if
there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State
Government It must therefore follow that in an area other
than that comprised in the urban agglomerations referred to
in section 2(n) (A) (i), land held by a person in excess of
the ceiling area would be liable to be determined as on 1st
January 1975 under the Andhra Pradesh Act and only land
within the ceiling area will be allowed to remain with him.
It is only in respect of land remaining with a person
whether an individual or a family after the operation of the
Andhra Pradesh Act, that the Central Act would apply if and
when the area in question is notified to be an urban
agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the Central Act.
We fail to see how it can at all be contended that merely
because an area may possibly in the future be notified as an
urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the Central
Act, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would cease to have
competence to legislate with respect to ceiling on land
situate in such area even though it is not an urban
agglomeration at the date of the enactment of the Andhra
Pradesh Act. Undoubtedly, when an area is notified as an
urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii), the Central
Act would apply to land situate in such area and the Andhra
Pradesh Act would cease to have application but by that time
the Andhra Pradesh
1157
Act would have already operated to determine the ceiling on
holding of land falling within the definition in section
3(j) of that Act and situate within such area. It is
therefore not possible to uphold the contention of the
landholders that the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act is
ultra vires and void as being outside the area of
legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It
is only in respect of land situate within the urban
agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (A) (i) of the
Central Act that the Andhra Pradesh Act would not apply but
it would be fully applicable in respect of land situate in
all the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The next contention urged on behalf of the landholders
was that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions
of the Andhra Pradesh Act, a divided minor son was not
liable to be included in "family unit" as defined in section
3(f) of that Act. The argument was that sub-section (2) of
section 7 did not invalidate all partitions of joint family
property but struck only against partitions effected on or
before 2nd May 1972 and thus by necessary implication
recognised the validity of partitions affected prior to that
date. If therefore a partition was effected prior to 2nd May
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13
1972 and under that partition a minor son become divided
from his father and mother, the divided minor son could not
be included in the family unit and his property could not be
clubbed with that of his father and mother, because
otherwise it would amount to invalidation of the partition
though section 7, sub-section (2) clearly recognised such
partition as valid. This argument is clearly fallacious in
that it fails to give due effect to the definition of family
unit in section 3(f) and the provisions of section 4. It is
undoubtedly true that a partition effected prior to 2nd May
1972 is not invalidated by the Andhra Pradesh Act and
therefore any property which comes to the share of a divided
minor son would in law belong to him and would not be liable
to be required as part of joint family property. But under
the definition of family unit in section 3(f) the divided
minor son would clearly be included in the family unit and
by reason of section 4 his land whether self-acquired or
obtained on partition would be liable to be clubbed with the
land held by the other members of the family unit. The land
obtained by the divided minor son on partition would be
liable to be aggregated with the lands of other members of
the family unit not because the partition is invalid but
because the land held by him howsoever acquired is liable to
be clubbed together with the lands of others for the purpose
of applying the ceiling area to the family unit. We do not
therefore see how a divided minor son can be excluded from
the family unit. That would be flying in the face of
sections 3(f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Act.
1158
Then a contention was advanced on behalf of the
landholders that the definition of "family unit" was
violative of Article 14, of the Constitution in that it made
unjust discrimination between a minor son and the major son
by including minor son in the "family unit" while excluding
a major son from it. This contention has already been dealt
with by learned brother Tulzapurkar, J. in the judgment
delivered by him today in the Haryana Land Ceiling matters
and we need not repeat what he had already stated there
while repelling this contention. Moreover, this contention
isl no longer open to the landholders since the Andhra
Pradesh Act is admittedly an agrarian reform legislation and
it is protected against challenge on the ground of
infraction of Articles 14, 19 and 31 by the protective
umbrella of Article 31A. We do not therefore see any
substance in the contentions urged on behalf of the
landholders and we accordingly dismiss the appeals and the
writ petitions with costs.
S.R. Appeals & Petitions dismissed.
1159