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