PASUMARTHI LAXMINARASIMHAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that both the lower authorities should have excluded the area of A. 72.29 guntas which, it is stated, have been sold by the petitioner for valuable consideration. It is admitted before me that no sale deeds have yet been executed in favour of the so-called purchasers and that permission under section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy and Agriculsural Lands Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) has not been obtained; but possession has been given to the so-called purchasers and that the petitioner is not in possession of that area of land. This contention was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the sale made by him in favour of the ryots is not a valid one. His contention is whether the agreement of sale without any permission under section 47 of the Tenancy Act is valid or not is a matter which has been referred to a Division Bench. In this particular case, the question is not whether the agreement of sale is valid. The question is whether the petitioner had ceased to be the owner of A. 72.29 guntas because of the agreement of sale by him in favour of the ryots. It cannot be disputed that mere agreement of sale does not transfer any ownership in the property to the so-called purchasers.

(2.) In this particular case, the lands being agricultural lands cannot be sold unless permission under section 47 of the Tenancy Act has been obtained. Admittedly, no such permission has been obtained. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has ceased to be the owner of A. 72.29 guntas. Therefore, the Collector was right in saying that A. 72.29 guntas cannot be excluded on the ground that the agreement of sale has been executed by the petitioner in favour of the ryots.

(3.) His next contention is, assuming that the petitioner is still the owner of A. 72.29 guntas he has ceased to be in possession of those lands and those cannot be included in his' holding.' In support of his contention, he relies upon section 2 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, (referred to hereinafter as Ceiling Act). He contends that 'holding' has been defined to be the entire land held by a person as owner and for purposes of holding a land it is necessary that he should be in possession of the property. He also relies upon the definition ' to hold land ' or to be a landholder or ' holder ' of land given in section 2 (6) of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. The definition in the Land Revenue Act cannot be read into the Ceiling Act when no such provision is made in the Ceiling Act. Further, the definition of holding' given in Ceiling Act says as follows: