MADALA CHITTEMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is her son. They are living separately. They filed separate declaration with regard to their holdings of agricultural land as provided under Section 8 of the Act. One Venaiah was the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner. He executed a registered settlement deed dated 15-9-1957 under which he gave life interest to the first petitioner and vested remainder right to the second petitioner in respect of a land of an extent of Ac. 37-85 cents computed as 1.1207 standard holdings. This is the land which is now in possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner for which she filed the declaration. The second petitioner filed his declaration for Ac. 50-51 cents of land computed at 1.0030 standard holdings excluding the land for which the first petitioner filed her declaration and in which he has only a vested remainder right. Those facts are not in dispute.

(2.) The Land Reforms Tribunal, Nuzvid, treating the mother and the son as one family unit and the lands in their separate possession and enjoyment as one holding, computed the holding at 2.1237 standard holdings and ordered, 1.1237 standard holdings to be surrendered. On appeal by both the petitioners, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Krishna District has rightly agreed with the petitioner that each of them should be treated as an individual and not as constituting one family unit and each of them is entitled to have one standard holding and ordered the mother to surrender 0.1207 standard holdings from out of 1.1207 standard holdings of land in her possession. But in the holding of the son by including the entire land of Ac. 37.85 cents namely, 1.1207 standard holdings of land which is now in possession and enjoyment o the mother and over which the son has a vested remainder right only without any present right for possession and enjoyment (his right for possession and enjoyment would come into existence only after the lifetime of his mother if he were to be alive by then) computed his holding at 2.1237 standard holdings (1.0030 standard holdings in his possession and 1.1207 standard holdings of his mothers land) and came to the conclusion that he should surrender 1.1237 standard holdings and ordered him to surrender the entire extent of Ac. 50-51 cents of land as computed at 1.0030 standard holdings which is held by him now and which could be even less than the extent of 1.1237 standard holdings which is fond to be in excess with regard to his holding as mentioned above.

(3.) The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal based its conclusion for including in the holding of the son the entire land held by the mother and not merely the excess land which would revert to him as per provision contained in Section 12 of the Act, on the explanation to Section 3 (i) of the Act which is the definition given for the term holding. The question for consideration is whether the entire land held by the mother and not merely the excess land in her possession which alone would revert to the son as provided under Section 12 of the Act is to be included in the holding of the son.