CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS GUDIVADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points arise which are common to all these three Civil Revision Petitions. The first is that Acre 12.50 cents of land said to have been held under an agreement of sale Exhibit A-2, dated 27th July, 1970 has to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner as it has been amply established by Exhibit A-3, which is an order made on the declaration filed by the vendee. The submission is substantial and the same will have to be allowed not only because of the fact that the sale and also the possession of the vendee been established, but also on the ground that if the extent has been already included in the holding of one declarant the same cannot be included in another person's holding. Viewed from any angle, the contention is cogent and the same has to be allowed. The finding in this behalf given by the Tribunals below is set aside by holding that the revisionists are entitled for exclusion of the extent covered by Exhibit A-2 from their holding.

(2.) The second point is, whether the land admittedly located within the urban agglomeration, can be computed in the holding of the petitioners under the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. No doubt, this Court has repeatedly held that such land cannot be included for the purpose of computation in the holding of the petitioners . But the persistent non-observance of the said settled decisions by the Appellate Tribunal, is both amusing as well as amazing.

(3.) It is amusing because the Presiding, Officer of the Appellate Tribunal does not appear to have taken the trouble of going through the Full Bench decision, and also the later decisions of this Court wherein it is held, based on the ratio of Full Bench decision, that the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act does not apply to "Vacant Land" in an "Urban agglomeration" to which the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act applies. It may also usefully extract, in extenso, the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in Tumati Rangayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh: "While going ahead with the imposition of ceiling on holding of agricultural lands both the houses of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature also passed a resolution authorising Parliament to regulate by law 'the imposition of a ceiling on Urban Immovable Property and acquisition of such property inexcess of the ceiling and all matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The resolution was passed by the Houses on 7th and 8th April, 1972 in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution. This was followed by an Ordinance, dated 2nd May, 1973 and the Andhra Pradesh Act XII of 1972, banning alienation of vacant land in urban areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh and some other States Parliament on 17th February, 1976 enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act XXXIII of 1976). Thus a law made by Parliament pursuant to the power surrendered to it by the Legislatures of two or more States holds a very special position under the Constitution and must be held to prevail any other State law. If the provisions of the State Act are repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act to the extent of the land covered by both the definitions of 'land' in the State Act and the definition of 'vacant land' in the Central Act, then, to that extent the provisions of the State Act are void. Had the Appellate Tribunal given serious consideration to the observations extracted above, it is probable that it would have refrained from the persistant non-observance of the decisions laid down by this Court.