Utukuri Sarat Kumar and Others vs Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Ongole

Lingaraja Rath, J

This case has come before us by a reference of a single Judge of this Court disagreeing with the view in earlier decision of this Court in A. Alivelamma v. Spl. Tahsildar L.R., 1987 (2) APLJ 192 on the question as to whether a major unmarried daughter is entitled to one standard holding under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Land Reforms Act"). The learned Judge took the view that even though an unmarried major daughter becomes a coparcener by her birth in a Joint Hindu Family by virtue of the Amendment, yet, it does not ensure to her benefit to claim a separate holding for herself under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.

in A. Alivelamma ''s case (supra) an opposite view had been taken that Section 29A has an overriding effect starting with a non-obstante clause that the daughter of a coparcener shall by her birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and shall have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have, had she been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship. The consequence of the decision was that a major unmarried daughter in the family was held as entitled to be treated as a separate family unit.

The Andhra Pradesh Act 1 of 1973, is a socially beneficent legislation intended for achieving sweeping agricultural reforms and has the purpose to divest concentration of agricultural land in the landed affluent and for an equitable distribution of such landed wealth among the needy and exploited class of persons. It is for such a reason that provision has been made for compulsory vesting of private agricultural land in the State for distribution of the same amongst the landless. In progressive realisation of such objective the Constitution itself was amended by abolishing Article 31 and introducing Article 31A. Wilh that objective in view, the Act defined in Section 3(f) family unit, so far as relevant to the present case, to mean in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters, if any. Logically, it was also said that where the individual has no spouse, the family unit would mean, himself and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters; where the individual is a divorced husband and has not remarried, the expression is to mean the individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters whether in his custody or not; and where both the individual or his spouse are dead, their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters.

''Holding'' has been defined in Clause 3

(i) as entire land held by a person;

(ii) as an owner;

(iii) as a limited person;

(iv) as an usufructuary mortgagee;

(v) as a tenant

(vi) 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; or in one or more of such capacities, and the expressions "to hold land" shall be construed accordingly.

Though ''owner'' is defined in Section 3(h), yet it is not necessary for us to consider the definition for our purpose here.

Lastly, a ''person'' is defined -in Section 3(o) as including an individual, a family unit, a trustee, a company, a firm, a society or an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

Every person is required to submit a declaration u/s 8 of the Land Reforms Act whose holding on the notified date, together with any land transferred by him on or after 24th January 1971, whether by way of sale, gift, insufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, and any, land in respect of which a trust has been created by him on or after that date, exceeds the specified limits. The notified date admitted in this case is 1-1-1973.

Thus the scheme of the Act is that a person who holds land is obliged to submit a declaration in respect of the entire land held by him in whatsoever manner, if the land so held is in excess of the specified limit. If the declaration is not filed, the Tribunal under the Act has the jurisdiction to issue notice where it has reason to believe that a person either holds or deems to hold excess land, to furnish the declaration and thereafter the procedure under the Act is worked out for determining the ceiling area and consequential vesting in the Government and thereafter for distribution to the eligible persons.

Section 4 determines the ''ceiling area''. It stipulates that in the case of a family unit consisting of not more than 5 members, it shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding and where the number of units are more, the ceiling to be an additional extent of one fifth of one standard holding for every such member in excess of five, so however, that the total ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings. Ceiling area is thus determined with respect of the family unit. The family unit, as has been noticed earlier, has been artificially denned to satisfy the persons as to who are included therein with reference to the holder of land.

The concept of the family in the definition ''family unit'' has nothing to do with the traditional concept of the family or the concept of the family as is obtained under the Hindu Law or the Hindu Succession Act. The larger concept of a Joint Hindu Family or a coparcenery family is not visualised in the Land Reforms Act. Because of such definition, the traditional Hindu Joint Family would consist of many family units but all such family units are to be regarded as such only with reference to the notified date under the Act. The status of the different family units and their entitlement to hold the property in accordance with their respective ceilings is to be decided with reference to the notified date. Hence thus in the case of a traditional Hindu Joint Family, if on the notified date there are several coparceners who are eligible to be regarded as different family units they are to be regarded as such and would be entitled to hold land independently upto the extent of the ceiling. But if a person is the head of a family unit, his minor son though is a coparcener himself, yet, would not be entitled to a separate ceiling; he being included in the family unit of his father. This analysis is only logical since if the extent of the land to be retained by the different family units is not determined with reference to the notified date, then the process of the land reforms would be forever a continuing and inchoate process, always be in a fluid state so as to permit other coparceners to gradually claim different units for themselves.

Admittedly, by the notified dale, a major daughter was not a coparcener in a Hindu Joint Family. She was made so only by virtue of the 1986 Amendment with effect from 5-9-1985. But, though she becomes a coparcener by her birth, yet, the incidence of the coparcenery begins from 5-9-1985 only but by such date, the ceiling law has already operated and the entire land reforms proceedings was expected lo have been finalised and the land vested in the State and distributed. It is another matter that some proceedings might have been filed and are pending before the Tribunals concerned, but such a forfeitous circumstance would not reverse the rights and the liabilities which in law have to be taken to have been already finalised by the notified date.

It is possible to conceive that in respect of a declaration filed u/s 8, the matter has been finalised, the excess land vested in the Government and has also been distributed before 5-9-1985. It would be inconceivable that in such a case only because Act 13 of 1986 has been passed, that the whole thing is to be reopened again and the excess land distributed to landless must be retrieved and further ceiling or ceilings to be given to the unmarried major daughter or daughters.

It is for such reason we are not able to agree with the decision in A Alivetamma ''s case (supra). No doubt Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act starts with the non-obstante clause but the overriding effect of the provision is only in respect of Section 6(6) of the Hindu Succession Act, which section deals with devolution of interest in coparcenery property. In the event of a Hindu dying intestate, after the commencement of the Succession Act. That provision would have no overriding effect over the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. It is of course possible for the Legislature to enact a provision with retrospectivily to treat major unmarried daughters as family units with effect from notified date, but Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act does say so.

Mr. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners attempted to contend before us placing reliance on Kolluru Sambasiva Rao Vs. Kolluru Nagabhushanam alias Nageswara Rao and Others, submitting that the effect of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act is to declare a daughter as a coparcener from 1956. We have not found anything in the decision to read it that way.

We do not find any merit in the revision petitions. Both the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.