http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.   LAKSHMI DEVI ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1993

BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (1) 179        1993 SCC  (2) 421  JT 1993 (1)   274        1993 SCALE  (1)69

ACT: Andhra   Pradesh  Land  Reforms  (Ceilng   on   Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973/Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling  on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974: Sections  3(i) and 12/Rule 9--Land surrendered by  party  in possession   through  part  performance  of   agreement   to sell--Whether to revert to owner.

HEADNOTE: The  respondents  entered  into an agreement  to  sell  land admeasuring 294 acres, to a Sugar Company, and in  pursuance thereof  handed over possession of the land to the  company. Ile company flied a declaration under the provisions of  the Andhra   Pradesh  Land  Reforms  (Ceiling  on   Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 declaring surplus land held by it, which included the land in question and this land was  surrendered by  the company as surplus land.  The primary Land  Tribunal negatived  the contention of the respondents that since  the title  to the said land had not passed to the  company,  the respondents  remained the owners thereof, and were  entitled to  the reversion of its possession under section  12(4)  of the  Act However, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms  Appellate Tribunal,  accepting the respondents’  contention,  directed the  appellants to hand over the possession of 294 acres  of land  to  the respondents.  The Revision  Petitions  of  the State were dismissed by the High Court. In the appeals before this.  Court, on behalf of the  State- appellants, it was contended that the Appellate Tribunal Was in  error  in directing the appellants to hand over  to  the respondents  possession of the land in question since  there had  been  a surrender of the said land and  the  appellants were under no obligation to return it to the respondents. On  behalf of the respondents it was contended that the  Act and  the Rules framed thereunder obliged the  appellants  to hand back to the respondents the possession of the land  and It was then for the respondents 180 to decide which particular part of their holding they should surrender as surplus, if any, under the terms of the Act Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD  1.1. By reason of section 3(1) of the  Andhra  Pradesh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Land  Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,  1973, the  owner is obliged to declare land that he has agreed  to sell  as his holding, as is the person who is in  possession of  it  through part performance of an  agreement  of  sale. Where that land is surrendered as surplus both by the  owner and the party in possession of it, the provisions of section 11  become applicable and the land vests in the  Government; but where the land is surrendered by the party in possession of  it through part performance of an agreement of sale  but it  is not also surrendered by the owner, the provisions  of sub-section  (4) of section 12 apply and the  possession  of the land must revert to the owner. [184C-D] 1.2. Under section 12(4), the possession shall revert to the owner subject to    such  rules as may be  prescribed.   The relevant rule in this behalf is Rule 9  of    the     Andhra Pradesh  Land  Reform  (Ceiling  on  Agricultural  Holdings) Rules,  1974.   Sub-Rule (1) thereof states that  where  any land  is surrendered or is deemed to have  been  surrendered under the Act by, inter alia, a person in possession through part  performance of a contract for sale, the possession  of such land shall, as soon as may be after a seasonal crop  on the land is harvested, revert to the owner, except in a case where the owner himself surrender such land as surplus under the  provisions of the Act, whereupon it shall vest  in  the Government   free  from  all  encumbrances.   Sub-Rule   (2) entities  the  owner  to apply  to  the  Revenue  Divisional Officer for being put in possession of the land if the party who  is in possession of it, inter alia, by virtue  of  part performance  of  a contract for sale fails  to  deliver  its possession  to him.  The Revenue Divisional Officer is  then obliged,  after giving to the party in possession an  oppor- tunity  of making a representation, to authorise an  officer to take possession of the land and deliver it to the  owner. [184E-G] 1.3. Therefore,  having regard to the fact that  sub-section (4) of section 12 refers to such rules as may be  prescribed and  terms of the prescribed rule, the land must  revert  to the owner. [184H, 185A] State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd Ashrafuddin, [1982] 3 S.C.R. 482; 181 Yedida  Chakradhararao (dead) through his L.Rs. & Ors.  etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 220, relied upon.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  31873193 of 1989. From  the  Judgment and Order dated 31.1.89  of  the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2388, 2391,  2428,  3345, 3418, 3425 and 3426 of 1988. C.   Sitaramiah,  T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. Bharathi  Reddy,  Ms. Pramila and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellants. K.   Madhava Reddy, B. Kanta Rao and B. Parthasarthy for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA,  J.  These appeals raise an  interesting  question relating  to the interpretation of section 12 of the  Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the  said  Act’)  The appeals,  by  the  State of  Andhra  Pradesh,  are  directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge  of the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court whereby  he  dismissed  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

revision petitions filed by the appellants against the order of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Land  Reforms  Appellate  Tribunal directing  the  appellants to hand over  possession  of  294 acres of land to the respondents. Briefly stated, these are the relevant facts The  respondents entered into an agreement to sell the  land in  appeal, admeasuring 294 acres, to M/s Challapalli  Sugar Limited  and in pursuance thereof handed over possession  of the said land to the said company.  The said company filed a declaration  under the provisions of the said Act  declaring surplus land held by it, which included the said land.   The respondents contended that since the title to the said  land had not passed to the said company they remained the  owners thereof and were entitled to the reversion of its possession to  them under section 12(4) of the said Act.   The  Primary Land Tribunal held against the respondents but the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court held in their favour. 182 It  is necessary to note the provisions of section  3(1)  of the  said  Act which defines ’holding" to mean  "the  entire land  held by a person as an owner as a limited owner; as  a usufructuary mortgagee; as a tenant; 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.............  section  12 of the  said  Act  reads thus:               ’12.    Reversion   and   vesting   of    land               surrendered  :- Where any land is  surrendered               or  is deemed to have been  surrendered  under               this  Act  by any  usufructuary  mortgagee  or               tenant,  the  possession of  such  land  shall               subject  so  such rules as may  be  prescribed               revert to the owner.               (2)   The owner to whom the possession of  the               land  reverts  under sub-section (1)  from  an               usufructuary mortgagee shall be liable to  pay               the   mortgage  money  due   to   usufructuary               mortgagee   in  respect  of  that  land   with               interest at the rate of six per cent per annum               from  the date of such revision, and the  said               land  shall  continue to be the  security  for               such payment.               (3)   The owner to whom the possession of  the               land  reverts  under sub-section  (1)  from  a               tenant  shall be entitled to receive from  the               tenant rent due for the period ending with the               last crop harvested by such tenant.               (4)   Where  any  land is  surrendered  or  is               deemded  to have been surrendered  under  this               Act by any person in possession by virtue of a               mortgage by conditional sale or through a part               performance of contract for sale or otherwise,               the  possession of such land shall subject  to               such rules as may be prescribed, revert to the               owner.               (5)   The owner to whom the possession of  the               land  reverts under sub-section (4)  shall  be               liable  to  discharge  the  claim  enforceable               against the land by person in possession : and               the  land  surrendered  shall  if  held  as  a               security, continue to be the security.               (5A)  Where  any  land is  surrendered  or  is               deemed to have been surrendered under this Act               by any limited owner, the possess-                183

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             sion of such land shall, subject to such rules               as  may  be prescribed; revert to  the  person               having a vested interest in the remainder  and               such  person shall be liable to discharge  the               claim  enforceable  against the  land  by  the               limited  owner;  and the said land  shall,  if               held  as  a  security,  continue  to  be   the               security  (Sub-section  5-A is  added  as  per               Amendment Act No. 10 of 1977).               (6)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in               this section, where any land surrendered by an               usufructuary mortgagee or a tenant or a person               in possession referred to sub-section (4),  is               also  a  land surrendered by  the  owner,  the               provisions of section 11 shall apply.’ Section  11 states that where any land is surrendered or  is deemed  to  have been surrendered under the said Act  by  an owner,  the Revenue Divisional Officer may, subject to  such rules  as  may be prescribed, by order, take  possession  or authorise any officer to take possession of such land, which shall  thereupon  vest in the Government free from  all  en- cumbrances  from  the  date of such  order.   Section  10(5) entitles a Tribunal to refuse to accept the surrender of any land in the circumstances therein stated. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants  that the  Appellate  Tribunal  was  in  error  in  directing  the appellants to hand over to the respondents possession of the aforementioned 294 acres of land.  In his submission,  there had  been  a surrender of the said land and  the  appellants were under no obligation to return it to the respondents. Learned  counsel  for the respondents urged,  on  the  other hand,  that  the said Act and the  Rules  framed  thereunder obliged  the  appellants  to hand back  to  respondents  the possession  of  the  said  land and  it  was  then  for  the respondents to decide which particular part of their holding they should surrender as surplus, if any, under the terms of the said Act. For our purposes what is relevant is that the said land  was surrendered  as  surplus by the said company, which  was  in possession  of the same by reason of part performance of  an agreement  of sale with the respondents, Sub-section (4)  of section 12 states that "where any land is 184 surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act  by any person in Possession............ through a  part performance of contract for sale..... the possession of such land  shall,  subject to such rules as  may  be  prescribed, revert  to the owner".  The exception that is made  to  this requirement  is  set out in sub-section (6)  of  Section  12 which states that it is only when land which is  surrendered by  the person in possession through a part  performance  of contract for sale is also surrendered by its owner that  the provisions  of  section 11 shall apply, that is to  say,  it shall vest in the Government. It  will  be remembered that by reason of section  3(1)  the owner is obliged to declare land that he has agreed to  sell as his holding, as is the person who is in possession of  it through  part  performance of an agreement of  sale.   Where that  land is surrendered as surplus both by the  owner  and the party in possession of it, the provisions of section  11 become applicable and the land vests in the Government;  but where the land is surrendered by the party in possession  of it  through part performance of an agreement of sale but  it is not also surrendered by the owner, the provisions of sub- section  (4) of section 12 apply and the possession  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

land must revert to the owner. It  will be noted that possession shall revert to the  owner "subject to such rules as may be prescribed".  The  relevant rule  in  this behalf is Rule 9 of the Andhra  Pradesh  Land Reforms  (Ceiling  on Agricultural  Holdings)  Rules,  1974. Sub-rule   (1)  thereof  states  that  where  any  land   is surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under  the said Act by, inter alia a person in possession through  part performance  of a contract for sale, the possession of  such land  shall, as soon as may be after a seasonal crop on  the land  is  harvested, revert to the owner, except in  a  case where  the  owner himself surrenders such  land  as  surplus under the provisions of the Act, whereupon it shall vest  in the  Government  free from all encumbrances.   Sub-rule  (2) entitles  the  owner  to apply  to  the  Revenue  Divisional Officer for being put in possession of the land if the party who  is in possession of it, inter alia, by virtue  of  part performance  of  a contract for sale fails  to  deliver  its possession  to him.  The Revenue Divisional Officer is  than obliged,  after  giving  to  the  party  in  possession   an opportunity  of  making a representation,  to  authorise  an officer to take possession of the land and deliver it to the owner.  Having regard to the fact that sub-section (4) of  185 section  12  refers to such rules as may be  prescribed  and terms of the prescribed rule, we are left in no doubt As  to the  correctness of the interpretation that we  have  placed upon section 12. We may mention that this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd.   Ashrafuddin,  [1982]  3  SCR  482  and   in   Yedida Chakradhararao (dead) through his L.Rs. & Ors. etc. v. State of  Andhra  Pradesh  & Ors. etc., [1990] 2  S.C.R.  220  had indicated the same interpretation. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed.  No order as to costs. N.P.V.                           Appeals dismissed. 186