CHINTADA PRASADA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case where the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), Act, 1973 particularly the definition of "family Unit" appear to be ambiguous, in view of the facts, and the same requires an interpretation which is in harmony with the object of the said Act. The necessary facts are as follows: One Malla Naidu possessed ancestral property of Ac. 22.38 1/2 cents equivalent to 0.8976 standard holding. He had a wife by name Chayadevi and a minor son by name Prasada Rao, Malla Naidu died some time in the year 1962 when Chintada Prasada Rao was a minor. It is said that Chayadevi married another person by name Sampathrao Nagamayya and became his legally wedded wife. Sampathrao Nagamayya also died, but before his death, he settled an extent of Ac. 6.26 cents of land on his wife Chayadevi. On 1-1-1975 Prasada Rao was a minor and Chayadevi who is the widow of S. Nagamayya, however as a guardian of Prasada Rao filed a declaration showing the lands that Prasada Rao inherited from his father Malla Maidu. The Land Reforms Tribunal accepted the declaration and held that there is no surplus to be surrendered. The Government having come to know that Chayadevi possesses Ac. 6.26 cents which she got from her 2nd husband S. Nagamayya and having recorded a statement from her and other village Officer's statements, filed L.R.A.No. 141 of 1977 along with an application (I.A. 515 of 1977) seeking to file additional evidence. ln the appeal, it was urged by the Government that Chayadevi, the mother of Chintada Prasada Rao, owns Ac. 6.26 cents which she got under a settlement-deed executed by Sampatharao Nagamayya and therefore, a fresh determination of the holding of Chayadevi as an individual and a member of the family unit consisting of his minor son Prasada Rao, is necessary. The appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the same to the Land Reforms Tribunal for fresh consideration on this aspect. As against the said order, this revision is filed.

(2.) Sri N.V. Ranganadham, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that when once Chayadevi as the widow of Malla Naidu married again Sampathrao Nagamayya which fact is not in dispute, she ceased to be the widow of Malla Naidu and she cannot be the member of the family unit in respect of the minor son, viz., the son of Malla Naidu. I see considerable force in this submission. Section 3(f) of the Ceiling Act defines "family unit" which reads thus:-

(3.) It can be seen that in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and minor daughters come within the meaning of the "Family Unit". The mere fact that she gave birth to Prasada Rao cannot be a circumstance to bring both of them again into the same family unit. The learned Government Pleader, however, relying on this definition of "family unit" sought to contend that if a plain meaning is given to Section 3 (f) (ii), then, Chayadevi as an individual who has no spouse and her minor son Prasada Rao, in whatever manner it may be, constitute the family unit. Such a literal and artificial interpretation cannot be given to this definition. If Nagamayya had been alive, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Chayadevi and Prasada Rao would constitute the same family unit. If that be so, can it be said that it will be different after the death of Sampathrao Nagammayya ?. Viewed from any angle Chayadevi cannot be a member of the same family unit along with Prasada Rao. She will be the member of the family unit of Nagamayya and after his death, herself and other members if any, constitute the family unit of Nagamayya. It is true, that Prasada Rao was a minor and somebody has to file the declaration on his behalf. But that does not mean that Chayadevi by filing a declaration on his behalf becomes a member of a family unit consisting of herself and Prasada Rao. The declaration filed by her shows that it was filed on behalf of the minor and not on behalf of the family unit consisting of herself and the minor son. The report of the Tahsildar also shows that it was filed on behalf of the minor Prasada Rao Therefore, the land which she came into possession under a settlement deed made by Nagamayya, her deceased 2nd husband, cannot be included in the holding of the family of Malla Naidu of which she ceased to be a member long time back. It cannot also be said that Ac. 6-26 cents is an acquisition so far as the minor son Prasada Rao is concerned. Therefore, under no circumstances this extent of land can be added to the holding of Prasada Rao. There is no point in remanding the matter again to the Land Reforms Tribunal, as the point is clear and as it does not require further consideration of any other material.