PASULA VENKAT REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahaboobnagar, in L.R.A No.524 of 1976. After allowing the petitioner's contention that the mother's share should be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner herein, the excess land liable to ba surrendered by the petitioner was determined at 0.5125. It is the case or the petitioner that his share is only 05042 and he, as a major son, is entitled to hold one ceiling area and the deficit area of his share is 0.4958 standard holding and, as such, applying Section 4-A of he Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, the share of his mother should be Increased by 0.4958 standard holding and only the balance, ie, 0.5125 minus 0.4958=0.0167, should be declared as the surplus liable to ba surrendered. I am unable to agree with this contention. Tne family unit of the petitioner comprises himself, his wife, two unmarried minor daughters and two minor sons. This family unit is entitled to 1.000 standard holding and the excess land liable to be surrendered by it Is 0.5125. There is no dispute so far. What is, however, argued by Mr.N.Bala Kishan Rao learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since his share, which is included in the family unit, is only 0.5042 and not one standard holding anti his mother also owns only 0.504 standard holding while she is entitled to hold one standard holding, the holding, his mother should be increased to the extent of the deficit area held by him. According to him, Section 4-A enjoins the increase of the parents' holdings to the extent of the deficit holding of their major son irrespective of whether the family unit of his major son holds more than the ceiling area or less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled. Section 4-A of the aforesaid Act reads as follows:- "Notwithstanding anything in section 4, weher an individual or an individual who is a member of a family unit, has one or more major sons and any such major son either by himself or together with other members of the family unit of which he is a member holds no land or holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then the ceiling area, in the case of the said individual or the family unit of which the said individual is a member computed in accordance with section 4, shall be increased in respect of each such major son by an extent of land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such major son or the family unit of which he is a member, or as the case may be, by the extent of land by which the land held by such major son or the family unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiiing area

(2.) To my mind, Section 4-A is applicable only where a person's major son, either by himself or as a member of she family unit, holds less than the ceiling area to which he or his family unit is entitled and not to a case where, the major son as an individual, holds more than the ceiling area to which he is entitled, or he being a member of the family unit that family unit holds more ,han the ceiling area to which it is entitled The contention of Mr. Bsla Kishan Rao that although the major son js a member of the family unit, his share of the property alone, which is included In the family unit, should be taken into account to determine whether Section 4-A applies or not, is not warranted by the wording of the Section. Section 4-A requires the Court to consider whether the major son, either by himself or together with other members of the family unit of which he is a member, "holds no land or holds an extent of iand less than the ceiling area" and only upon a finding that they held less that the ceiling area and then give the benefit of that section. It is, however urged that the expression 'together with other members of the family unitl of which he is a member, holds no land or holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area cannot be construed as the holding of the family unit. According to the learned Counsel, though the share of the major son is computed along with the lands held by the other members of the family unit, that family unit, consisting of the major son, his wife, minor children put together, may hold more than the family unit but the share of the major son himself does not vary and the major son himself cannot be deemed to be holding the land held by the family unit. So, according to him, If the major son's property is less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled, irrespective of the fact that the family unit of which he is a. member holds more or less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled, his share should be increased so as to make up the deficit in the ceiling area which her entitled to hold 'Acceptance of such a contention could only be on the footing that, rrespective of the fact whether a person is a member of the family unit or not that person would be entitled to hold in his own right one ceiling area even though the other members of the family unit hold other extents and together with his own share, the holding of the family unit exceeds the ceiling area to which the family unit is entitled. That runs contrary to general intendment of the Act that no individual or a family unit can own more than the ceiling area to which it is entitled under the Act. 'Ceiling area' is defined as the extent of land specified in Section 4 or Section 4-A to be the ceiling area and a 'person' is defined as including an individual and also a family unit. Just as an individual cannot hold more than the ceiling area to which he is entitled, a family unit of which that individual is a member also cannot hold more than the ceiling area to which it is entitled. 'Family unit' is defined in Section 3 (f) as follows:-

(3.) The family unit can hold one ceiling area if the number of members of that family is five and if the number of members are more than five, depending upon the number of extra members, it can at the most hold two ceiling areas, but not more. It is the extent held by all the members that has to be computed to determine what extent the famaly unit, as defined unper the Act, holds. Only on a computation of all the lands held by all the members of the family unit, the total extent held by the family unit and the surplus, if any, liable to be surrendered by it has to be determined If a major son of a parson, along with his wife and children, constitutes a family unit, he would have to make a declaration on behalf of the family unit, and even though the family unit as such may not collectively own any land and only its members hold land in their individual capacity, all that land would be pooled together to arrive at the total holding of the family unit. The contention of Mr. Bala Kishan Rao that the family unit as such does not hold any land cannot be accepted having regard to the judgment of this Court in K.V. Rao V, Authorised Officer (1) 1978 (2) APLJ 114 (to which I was a party)in which the contention that a family unit does not hold any land was rejected. The different members of the family unit may own the land but having regard to the definition of the expressions 'family unit' and 'ceiling area' contained in Section 4 and 4-A of the Act, the entire family unit, as defined under Section 3(f)of the Act, must be deemed to be holding the land owned by the different members of that family unit. If that be so, where a major son of a person is a member of the family unit and that famiiy unit holds more than the ceiling area to which he is entitled , then by applying Section 4-A that person cannot be allowed to retain any more land on the footing that the major son's share in the holding of the family unit is less than one ceiling area to which he is individually entitled, Once an individual is found to be a member of the family unit, it is the holding of the family unit that is relevant for purposes of applying Section 4-A and not the share of the individual in the family unit. Further, a Bench of the this Court has held in P.K.R. Raju V. State of A.P (2) 1980 (1) A P.L.J. 307 that the holding of the son cannot be increased by the nxtent of the land by which his father's holding falls short of the ceiling area and that benefit of Section 4-A can be availed of only by parents. If in the instant case, an individual or the petitioner's family unit, if he is a member of the family unit, were to fall short of the ceiling area to which they were entitled then the benefit of Section 4-A could have been given. But as it stands' the holding of the family unit, of which the petitioner is a member, is more than the celling area to which he is entitled. Merely because his mother hold only O.5042 standard holding, the benefit of Section 4-A cannot be given. This revision petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs.150/-.