N RANGANNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises out of the application for redetermination of the holding in accordance with Section 4-A of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973.

(2.) The petitioner (deceased) along with his three major sons filed declarations. The ceiliag areas of major sons were determined as 0.9339, 0.7991 and 0.9364 standard holdings. Two of major sons have one major son each and the Land Reforms Tribunal increased the ceiling area of the deceased petitioner under Sec. 4-A by adding the extents of land which fell short of the ceiling area in the case of his major sons. The extents of land falling short of the grand sons were not taken into account. Aggrieved by such determination an appeal is filed and the Appellate Tribunal construing the applicability of Sec. 4-A confirmed the order of the primary authority.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sec. 4-A takes in grand sons also and accordingly the ceiling area should be increased corresponding to the extent of the area of major grand-sons falling short. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to get at Sec. 4-A of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), Act, 1973 as amended by Act 10 of 1977 which is as follows : "Notwithstanding anything in Sec. 4, where 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, hold 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 Sec. 4, shall be increased in respect of each such major son or the family unit of which he is a member, or has the case maybe, by the extent of land held by such major son or the family unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiling area". Sec. 4-A inserted by amending Act seeks to reduce the rigour of ceiling in the case of an individual by taking into account the extent of land short of the ceiling area held by the major or the entire ceiling unit area if such major son does not hold any land. In the computation of ceiling area of the individual the holding of major son is taken into account and to the extent of deficiency in the ceiling limit or not holding the land at all by major son the surplus land held by the individual is liable to be scaled down by telescoping into major son's share. The essence of this provision is to confer corresponding benefit on the individual or a member of the family unit to the extsnt of the area of the major son falling short of ceiling. The benefit is confined to the holding of the area by major son only and the grand son cannot be brought within the fold as there is no indication explicitly or by implication to that effect. Sec. 4-A is intended to confer marginal benefit by giving advantages of the deficit area of the major son for the purpose of ceiling and the inclusion of grand son amounts to unduly stretching the Act. The concept of son inclusive of grand son under Hindu Law cannot be pressed into service as this is a special enactment and the reach of the provisions of the Act has to be construed in consonance with the intention and purpose of the Act and within the contours of the provisions. Sec. 4-A specifically adverts to computation of holding with reference to deficiency in the case of major son only and stretching this benefit by inviting general principles of Hindu Law or inclusive texture will be doing violence to the provisions. Sec. 4-A seeks to cover up with reference to major son and nothing more.