STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M TIRUPATHI REDDYDIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar in L R A No. 1371/77.

(2.) An interesting question of law arises in this case as regards the method of computation of the ceiling area under Sec.4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agicultural Holdings) Act, A few facts necessray for the appreciation of the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader may be stated. Tirupati Reddy has one majoi son by name Rami reddy. Rami Reddy had two major sons. Tiru Pathi Reddy filed a sepaiate declaration and Rami Reddy also filed a separate declaration. Tirupathi Reddy was found to be holding 1.1341 standard holding and as he was entitled to only one ceiling area the surplus which he would ordinarily be liable to surrender was 0.1341 standard holdings. His major son Rami Reddy who had filed a separate declaration along with his two major sons was found to be holding the same extent of land ie. 1.1341 standard holdings. This extent being the property which he got on partition from his father Tirupathi Reddy he was entitled to only a one third share therein. Accordingly the Tribunal computed the holding of Rami Reddy to be one-third of 1.1341 standard holdings ie. 0.3781 standard holdings and each of his two major sons was also held entitled to and holding 0.3781 standard holdings. The deficit in the holding of Rami Reddy, the major son of Tirupathi Reddy was found to be 0.6220 standard holdings. Applying sec. 4-A of the Act the Appellate Tribunal held that the holding of Tirupathi Reddy had to be increased to 1.6220 standard holdings ie. to the extent of the deficit holding of his major son Rami Reddy. Accordingly it held that Tirupathi Reddy was not liable to surrender 0.1341 standard holdings which was over and above one ceiling area, to which he would have been entitled if Sec. 4-A of the Act were not to be applicable.

(3.) Mr. Pulla Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when Rami Reddy had got 1.1341 standard holdings on partition from his father the mere fact that he had two major sons does not entitle Tirupathi Reddy to claim any land in excess of one ceiling area. According to the learned Government Pleader for the purpose of application of S3C.4-A the individual Rami Reddy by himself or together with the other members of his family should not have been holding more than one ceiling area to which he was entitled in order that Tirupati . Reddy may retain any land in excess of one standard holding. According to him though the two major sons of Rami Reddy did not constitute members of the family unit of Rami Reddy since they are the members of Rami Reddy's family their share in the joint family properties also should be taken into account to ascertain whether Rami Reddy was a member of a family to which his two major sons also belong and was holding one ceiling area to which he was entitled 0f not for the purpose of determining whether Section 4-A applies. I am unable to agree with this contention. Firstly this argument proceeds upon the assumption that the share of all the members of the family should be taken into account for the purpose of applying Sec. 4-A and secondly because the application of Sec. 4-A does not depend upon whether the property is joint family property or separate property. Sec.4-A deals with individuals or the family unit. If an individual or a person who is a member of the family unit has one or more major sons, then what has to be seen is whether that individual or such major son by himself or together with the other members of the family unif and not joint family holds no land or holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area to which he or his family unit was entitled. If one of these two conditions is satisfied viz., that he does not hold any land or holds less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled, then the holding of the individual who has such major son would be increased by the extent by which the major son falls short of the ctiling area to which he is entitled. In this case Raml Reddy is an individual who holds along witn his two major sons 1.1341 standard holdings. But since his two major sons although constitute members of his joint family, they do not constitute members of his family unit as defined under the Act in which are included individual and his or her spouse, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters only but does not include major sons, the 1/3 share to which each of his major sons are entitled therein cannot be computed in his holding as an individual or the holding of his family unit. For ascertaining whether that individual or that individual's family unit of which he is a member holds any land and whether such holding is over and above the ceiling area to which he or his family unit is entitled or not, the holding of the major sons cannot be taken into account. In the instant case in computing the holdingo f Rami Reddy, the share to which his two major sons are entitled cannot be included. If Rami Reddy's wife, minor sons or unmarried minor daughters hold any land that may be included in ascertaining his holding On such ascertainment if he is found to be holding land less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled then to the extent of that deficit his parent in this case Tirupathi Reddy must be allowed to retain under Sec. 4-A of the Act Sec. 4-A directs that the ceiling area in the case of the individual or the family unit of which the said individual is a member shall be increased in respect of each maior son bv an 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 ceiling area applicable to such major son or the family unit of which he is a member. The extent by which Rami Reddy's holding falls short of the ceiling area to which he is entitled calculated as above is 0.6220 standard holdings That being so although Tirupathi Reddy is entitled in his own right to only one ceiling area and if sec. 4-A were not to be applicable the excess land liable to be surrendered from out of the total extent of 1.1341 standard holdings would have been 0.1341 standard holdings. Inasmuch as Sec. 4-A is made applicable with effect from 1-1-1975 and inasmuch as his son falls short of the ceiling area to which he is entitled by 0.6220 standard holdings, he would be entitled to retain not only 1.1341 standard holdings but may further retain upto 1.6220 standard holdings. Section 4-A does not deal with joint family properties or separate properties as such. It deals with individuals and the family units. A family unit may hold lands comprising of separate or self acquired properties or joint family properties. It may comprise of lands in which only one member of the family may have a right and the other members of the family unit may not have any right or it may comprise of properties in which several members of the family unit may have a joint right but for the purpose of the Ceiling Act if they constitute members of the family unit all those extents would have to be computed as the holding of the family unit. But if they do not constitute members of one family unit only their share therein has to be computed for ascertaining their holding under the Act. If such family unit holds less than the ceiling area to which it is entitled and one of the members of the family unit happens to be a major son of another declarant who holds land in excess of the ceiling area to which he is entitled the holding of that parent would have to be increased over and above the ceiling area to which that parent is entitled to the extent of the deficit holding of his major son, he be an individual or a member of the family unit In this view of the matter the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal doos not call for interference. The Civil Revision Petition therefore fails end is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/-