http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SMT. SREELATHA BHUPAL ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITSSECRETARY, REVENUE

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1989

BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  294            1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 314  1990 SCC  (1) 318        JT 1989 (4)   578  1989 SCALE  (2)1181

ACT:     Andhra  Pradesh  Ceiling on Agricultural  Holdings  Act, 1961:   ss.  7,  8,   10  &   19--Surplus   land---Surrender of--Compensation   determined-Revision  of--Whether   beyond jurisdiction.

HEADNOTE:     Sub-clause (2) of s. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling  on Agricultural  Holdings Act, 1961 mandates the Revenue  Divi- sional  Officer to serve a notice on every person liable  to surrender  land in excess of the ceiling area requiring  him to file a statement indicating the land which he proposes to surrender.  Sub-clause (3) requires the  Revenue  Divisional Officer  to  pass  orders on that  statement  approving  the surrender,  and the said land shall thereupon be  deemed  to have  been surrendered. Section 8 provides for  the  Revenue Divisional  Officer  to take over such land  on  payment  of compensation  under s. 10. Section 10 lays down the mode  of compensation.     In  the instant case, proceedings under s. 7(3)  of  the Act  in  respect of appellant’s land  having  concluded  the Revenue  Divisional  Officer had made an order under  s.  10 fixing the compensation. The District Revenue Officer howev- er instead of making the payment, issued a notice,  purport- ing  to be under s. 19(1), as amended, proposing  to  revise the said order.     The appellant filed a writ petition contending that when the  proceedings are concluded under sub-clause (3) of s.  7 the  surrender is complete and the land vests in the  State, that  what  remains under the scheme of s. 10  is  only  the question  of  determining  compensation, and  once  that  is determined  the authorities have no jurisdiction  to  revise the compensation.     On behalf of the State it was contended that cl. (3)  of s. 7 uses the words "deemed to have been surrendered"  which indicates  that although by an order passed by  the  Revenue Divisional Officer the proposal about the surrender of  land is finalised but still it is only 315 deemed surrender, and that the land only vests in the  State when  it  is  taken over after payment  of  compensation  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

accordance with s. 8.     The High Court took the view that unless taking over  is completed  under  s. 8 the land does not vest in  the  State and,  therefore, it could not be said that  the  proceedings under  the Act had come to an end and at this stage  if  the authorities have jurisdiction to revise the compensation  it could  not be said that the authorities have done  something beyond their jurisdiction. Dismissing the appeals, the Court,     HELD:  The scheme of s. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh  Ceiling on  Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 indicates that the  sur- plus  land which a holder will surrender is  finally  deter- mined  when  an order under cl. (3) is passed.  However,  in spite  of the finality of these proceedings the  legislature instead  of using the phrase "have been surrendered" in  the said clause uses the term "deemed to have been surrendered." It is clear from these words that something more remains  to be done, and that is what is provided in s. 8 by authorising the Revenue Divisional Officer to take over the land,  which is deemed to have been surrendered, on payment of  compensa- tion  determined under s. 10. It is only after  this  taking over that the land vests in the State. [319G; 320A; 320C-D]     It  is, therefore, apparent that orders under s.  8  can only be passed after compensation as determined under s.  10 is paid, and so far action under s. 8 has not been taken  it could  not  be said that the land vests in  the  State.  The competent authorities can revise the orders passed under  s. 10 if an amendment has taken place in between. [321H; 321B]     In  the  instant case, action under s. 8  had  not  been taken. The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the writ petitions. [321H; 322B]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1 147  of 1975.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  28.12.1973  of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High Court in W.P. No. 4818 of  1973.  With Civil Appeal Nos. 1054-55 of 1976, 1503 and 1546 of 1977     T.S.  Krishnamurthy  Iyer,  C.  Sitaramiah,  K.  Madhava Reddy,  Chella Sitaramani, K. Ram Kumar, Mrs.  J.  Ramachan- dran,  Mrs. Anjani, TVSN Chari, A.V. Rangam, Jagan  Rao  and A.V.V. Nair for the appearing parties. 316 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     OZA,  J. This appeal arises out of the judgment  of  the High  Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 48 18  of 1973 wherein the writ petition filed by the  Appellant/Peti- tioner was dismissed.     In the writ petition before the High Court the petition- er sought mandamus directing the respondent to pay forthwith to the petitioner compensation for the lands surrendered  by her  under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural  Hold- ings  Act 1961. A further direction was  sought  prohibiting the third respondent from proceeding with the revision under section  19(1)  of the Act as amended by Act No. I  of  1972 w.e.f. 19.1.72.     Necessary facts are that the petitioner’s husband  owned extensive lands in Gadwal. After the Act came into force the Revenue  Divisional  Officer, Gadwal issued a  notice  under section  3(2) of the Act directing the petitioner’s  husband to  file  a declaration of his  holdings.  The  petitioner’s husband  accordingly  filed the declaration.  Thereafter  he died  in 1969 leaving behind the petitioner and three  minor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

children.     The  Revenue  Divisional Officer held an  enquiry  under section 6 of the Act and by his order dated 25.1.71 he  held that  the  petitioner’s husband legal  representatives  were holding 29.72 family holdings in excess of the ceiling  area which they were entitled to hold.     A notice was then issued to the petitioner under section 7(2)  on 25-! .71 requiring the petitioner to file a  state- ment indicating the land which she proposes to surrender.     The  petitioner thereupon filed a detailed statement  of lands she proposes to surrender on 19.3.71.     The Revenue Divisional Officer on being satisfied  after an enquiry that the lands proposed to be surrendered satisfy the  requirements of sec. 7(1) and (2) of the Act passed  an order on 31.3.71 under section 7(3) of the Act approving the surrender  of 7 13.16 acres (an equivalent of  29.72  family holdings) by the petitioner.     Thereafter  the petitioner filed an  application  before the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of  compensation in  respect of lands surrendered by her under section 10  of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the  compensa- tion  of  Rs.6,44,265.09 in respect of lands  surrenderd  by her. 317     The .Revenue Divisional Officer published a notification containing  particulars  of  the lands  surrendered  by  the petitioner  and  the compensation payable  therefor  in  the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 7.7.71 according to section 11  of the Act.     Instead  of paying the compensation as  determined,  the District Revenue Officer Mahboobnagar issued a notice  dated 21.3.72 proposing to revise the orders of the Revenue  Divi- sional  Officer  dated 15.4.71 fixing  compensation  of  the lands surrendered by the petitioner. This notice is purport- ed to have been issued under section 19 clause 1 of the  Act as amended.     The  petitioner filed an objection contending  that  the 3rd  respondent  had  no jurisdiction to  revise  the  order fixing  compensation which was passed before, as on the  day the Divisional Officer issued notice the order sought to  be revised had become final. In spite of this the 3rd  respond- ent  has  not disposed of the revision  proceedings  and  it because  of  this writ petition was filed  before  the  High Court.     Learned  counsel for the appellant contended  before  us that once under section 7 the land which is in excess of the ceiling limit is determined and a statement of surrender  is filed by a holder which is accepted by the Revenue Division- al  Officer under clause 3 of section 7, the land  vests  in the  State and thereafter the authorities have no  jurisdic- tion  to  attempt to revise the compensation  or  any  order which has already been passed under the Act.     Whereas  on  behalf of the State it was  contended  that clause  3  of section 7 uses the word "deemed to  have  been surrendered"  which  clearly indicates that although  by  an order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer the proposal made by the holder about the surrender of land is accepted and it is  finalised but still it is only deemed surrender as  even after this land does not vest in the State but it only vests as has been contemplated under section 8 which clearly  lays down that the land which is deemed to have been  surrendered under  section  7 only vests in the State when it  is  taken over  after payment of compensation in accordance with  sec- tion 8.     The High Court accepted the contention of the State  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

it took the view that unless taking over is completed  under sec. 8 the land does not vest in the State and therefore  it could  not be said that the proceedings under this  Act  has come  to an end and at this stage when the land has yet  not vested in the State if the authorities have jurisdiction 318 to  revise  the compensation it could not be said  that  the authorities have done something beyond their jurisdiction.     The main argument before the High Court and before us on behalf of the appellant is that once under the scheme of the Act  an  order is passed by the  competent  authority  under section 7 sub-clause 3 so far as the holder is concerned  he has surrendered the surplus land and what remains under  the scheme  of section 10 and 11 is only the question of  deter- mining of compensation and once that is determined there  is no option to the authorities but to pay compensation to  the person  Who has surrendered the holding in  accordance  with the scheme of section 7 of the Act.     It  is  not in dispute that the proceedings  were  taken under  Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural  Holdings  Act 1961  and after the declaration was filed the  ceiling  area was determined in accordance with section 6. It is also  not in dispute that in accordance with section 7 sub-clause 2  a notice  was served on the petitioner/appellant for filing  a statement indicating the land which she proposes to  surren- der and it is after the statement was filed by the appellant that  an order in accordance with sub-clause 3 of section  7 was passed. Section 7 reads:               "(1) If the extent of the holding of a  person               is  not more than the ceiling area  determined               under  section  6,  he shall  be  entitled  to               retain  such holding, but if it is  more  than               the  ceiling area, he shall be liable to  sur-               render  the  extent of land in excess  of  the               ceiling area.               (2) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall serve               on  every  person who is liable  to  surrender               land in excess of the ceiling area under  sub-               section  (1), a notice specifying therein  the               extent of land which he has to surrender,  and               requiring  him  to file a  statement  in  such               manner  and within such period as may be  pre-               scribed  indicating therein the land which  he               proposes to surrender.               (3) If the person, on whom a notice is  served               under  sub-section  (2), files  the  statement               referred  to  in that subsection,  within  the               prescribed   period  and  Revenue   Divisional               Officer is satisfied, after making an  inquiry               in  the prescribed manner, that  the  proposed               surrender  of the land is in  accordance  with               the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), he               shall  pass an order approving  the  surrender               and the               319               said  land shall thereupon be deemed  to  have               been surrendered by such person.               (4) If the person, on whom a notice is  served               under subsection (2), does not file the state-               ment  referred to in that  sub-section  within               the prescribed period, or filed such statement               within  the  prescribed period, but  does  not               specify  therein  the entire  extent  of  land               which  he has to surrender, the Revenue  Divi-               sional  Officer  may himself  select,  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             former  case,  the entire extent  and  in  the               latter  case the balance of the  extent  which               such  person  has to surrender,  and  pass  an               order  to that effect; and thereupon the  said               land  or the balance of land, as the case  may               be,  shall be deemed to have been  surrendered               by such person".     The  scheme  of  this section indicates  that  when  the extent of holding of a person is determined under section  6 and if while determining it under section 6 it is found that he is holding more than the ceiling area he shall be  liable to  surrender the extent of the land which is in  excess  of the ceiling area. Sub-clause 2 of this section  contemplates that  the Revenue Divisional Officer will serve a notice  on all  such  persons who are liable to surrender the  land  in excess of the ceiling area and this notice will specify  the extent of the land which he has to surrender and a direction that  the person concerned will file a statement  indicating the land which the holder proposes to surrender.     Sub-clause 3 of the this section contemplates that after the  notice  under  sub-clause 2 is served  and  the  person concerned files his statement within the prescribed  period, the  Revenue Divisional Officer if he is satisfied from  the statement filed in response to a notice under clause 2 about the  land which the holder proposes to surrender,  he  shall pass an order approving the surrender of the land.     Sub-clause  4  contemplates a situation  where  after  a notice  is served under clause 2 the holder does not file  a statement as contemplates under clause 3.     It is, therefore, clear that so far as the surplus  land which  a  holder will surrender is concerned it  is  finally determined  when  an order under clause 3 of  section  7  is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer but it is  signifi- cant that in spite of the finality of these proceedings  the legislature  uses the phrase "thereupon deemed to have  been surrendered by such person". It is significant that  instead of using the 320 phrase "have been surrendered" the legislature uses the term "deemed to have been surrendered" and it is clear from these words  that  something more remains to be  done.  Section  8 reads as under:               (8)  "Where  any land is deemed to  have  been               surrendered  under section 7 by an owner,  the               Revenue Divisional Officer may, by order, take               over  such  land on  payment  of  compensation               under  section  10,  and such  land  shall  be               disposed  of in the prescribed manner  by  as-               signment to landless poor persons".     This  provides for vesting ’of the land deemed  to  have been surrendered by the owner. This terminology used in  the heading  of  the section itself indicates  that  even  after determination  of the surplus land which is deemed  to  have been  surrendered’ vesting only takes’ place when  something more  is done and that is what is provided in this  section. This  section authorises the Revenue Divisional  Officer  to take over the land on payment of compensation,  compensation which is determined u/s 10 and land which is deemed to  have been surrendered u/s 7 and it is only after this taking over under  section 8’that under the scheme of this  section  the land  vests in the State and thereafter it is provided  that such  land shall be disposed of in the prescribed manner  by assignment to landless poor persons.     A perusal of the scheme of the section therefore clearly indicates  that after an order is passed under sub-clause  3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

of  sec.  7 although the proceedings for  surrender  of  the surplus  land and the selection of the land which is  sought to be surrendered is complete but still it is not  surrender but it is only deemed to have been surrendered which clearly indicates  that  so far as the holder is  concerned  he  has finally got determined the lands which he will surrender  as surplus  which  in  due course will vest in  the  State  for distribution to other landless persons but it is also  clear from  the language of section 8 and also from  the  language used in sub-clause 3 of section 7 that unless the land which is deemed to have been surrendered is taken over by  payment of compensation determined under section 10 it does not vest in  the State. The scheme of section 8  therefore  indicates that vesting in the State that is taking over by the Revenue Divisional  Officer  and payment of compensation has  to  be simultaneous  with and an order under section 8. It,  there- fore,  appears  that after proceeding for  determination  of surplus under section 7 is completed, proceedings for deter- mination  of compensation will start as is provided in  sec- tion  10  and it is only when compensation is  also  finally determined that under section 8 321 taking over will take place after the compensation is paid.     It is, therefore, clear that after the proceedings  have been completed in accordance with section 7 sub-clause 3 and even  after the compensation has been determined but  action under section 8 has not been taken it could not be said that the  land vests in the State. The competent authorities  can revise the orders passed if an amendment has taken place  in between. It is apparent that in spite of proceedings  having come to an end under sub-clause 3 of section 7 and that  the compensation has been determined still the land remains with the holder who is enjoing the benefits out of the land until action under section 8 is completed.     Under  these  circumstances  therefore  the   contention advanced  by  the appellant that when  the  proceedings  are concluded  under subclause 3 of section 7 the  surrender  is complete and the land vests in the State cannot be  accepted as admittedly action under section 8 has not been taken.     On  the basis of some orders which appear to  have  been passed under section 10 it was contended that taking over is complete but in these orders only language of section 10  is reproduced. Section 10 reads as under:               "Compensation  for  lands taken  over  by  the               Revenue Divisional Officer: (1) The  compensa-               tion  payable for any land taken over  by  the               Revenue Divisional Officer under section 8  or               section 9 shall be an amount calculated at the               rates specified in the Second Schedule.  Where               there are any structures of a permanent nature               or trees on such land the value of such struc-               tures  or  trees shall be  determined  by  the               Revenue Divisional Officer in the manner  pre-               scribed and paid to the person who is entitled               thereto.                         (2)  The compensation payable  under               sub-section  (1) shall be paid either in  cash               or  in bonds, or partly in cash and partly  in               bonds  as  the Government may  deem  fit.  The               bonds shall be issued on such terms and  carry               such rate of interest as may be prescribed." But  admittedly no order could be produced under section  8. It  is clear that orders under section 8 can only be  passed after compensation as determined under section 10 is paid. 322

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

   Therefore no advantage could be taken from these  orders under section 10. It was also alleged on behalf of the State that  against  these orders under section 10,  it  were  the appellants  (some of them) who filed writ petitions  in  the High court challenging the compensation and thus question of determination of compensation itself remained pending.     Consequently,  in our opinion, the High Court was  right in rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants.  We therefore  see  no reason to entertain this  appeal.  It  is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.     For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal Nos. 1054/76, 1055/  76, 1503/77 and 1546/77 are allowed. No order  as  to costs. P.S.S.                                                Appeal dismissed. 323