Holding

The Andhra Pradesh Act is not wholly ultra vires; it applies to all land except vacant land in urban agglomerations covered by the Central Act, and the definition of family unit is constitutionally valid and protected by Article 31A.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined challenges to the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (as amended in 1977) on the ground that, after the Parliament enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 under Article 252, the State law became void for being outside the legislature's competence. The Court held that the Central Act only supersedes the State Act with respect to "vacant land" in urban agglomerations defined in the Central Act; the Andhra Pradesh Act remains valid for all other land. The Court also rejected the contention that the definition of "family unit" (which includes divided minor sons) violated Article 14, noting that the provision is part of agrarian reform legislation protected by Article 31A. Consequently, the State law was not ultra vires, and the challenges based on Articles 14, 19 and 31 were barred. The appeals and writ petitions filed by the land‑holders were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (as amended) is ultra vires the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 enacted by Parliament under Article 252.
Whether the definition of "family unit" that includes divided minor sons infringes Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Act is protected from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31 by the protective umbrella of Article 31A.
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Act applies to land situated in urban agglomerations and the effect of future notifications of such agglomerations.
Whether a divided minor son can be excluded from the family unit for the purpose of ceiling calculations.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (as amended 1977)s. 10, s. 3(f), s. 3(j), s. 4, s. 4A, s. 7
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 10, s. 23, s. 2(n), s. 2(o), s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

agrarian reformland ceilinglegislative competenceArticle 252Article 246urban landfamily unitdivided minor sonconstitutional validityArticle 31AArticle 14Article 19Article 31

Judgment

1143

TUMATI VENKAISH ETC. ETC.
v. A
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
. May 9, 1980

" [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD,' C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, B
• V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND A P. SEN, JJ.]

• The Atu/hra P;adesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
• Act I of 1913, as aniended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms. (Ceiling on
Agricuiturnl floldings) Amendment Act, 1977-Section. 4A Constitutional
validity of-Whether, by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulatiou) Act 1976 (Central Act), the Andhra Pradesh Act had be· c
con1e void and inoperative. as being outside the legilslative competence of the
A 11dhra Pradesh Legislature-Resolutions dated 7th April 1972 and 8th April
1972 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council and the Andhra Pra~
desh Legislatil'e Assembly under Art. 252 ( 1) of the Constitution.

The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
Act I of 1973 wa's enacted 011 !st of January 1973. Though a Full Bench of D
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh when challenged by some of the land
holders held! by its judgment dated I Ith April, 1973, the Act to be constitu·
tionally valid; yet the· said Act was not brought into force till 1st January 1975.
In 1977, the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1st January 1975
by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)
Amendment Act ·1977. As soon as the Amending Act was pa'ssed, the land
holders once again filed writ petitions in the High Court, challenging· the E
constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The main ground, inter alia,
was that by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regula-
tion) Central Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Act had become void and inope-
rative.

A Full Bench of five Judges of the High Court held that the enactment of
the Central Act did not have the effect of invalidating the whole of the F
Andhra Pradesh Act, but since· the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act were
repugnant to the provision's of the Central Act so far as ·concerned land satis-
fying both the definition of "land" in the Andhra Pradesh Act and the :iefi-
ni.tion Of "vacant land", in the central Act, the Andhra Pradesh Act was
1

held oot applicable to "vacant lands" falling within, the ambit of the Central
Act. Save for this limited relief, the High Court dismissed the Wit petitions
in all other respects. Hence the appeals by the land holders after obtaining G
special leave· from this Court. Writ Petitions were also filed directly in this
Court by ·:some of the land holders.

J)ismissing the appeals, and writ petitions, the Court
.H
HELD : 1.. Article 246 of the Constitution of India carves out an exception
derogating from t'he normal distriblltion of legislative powers between the
Union and the States. The effect of passing of resolutions by the Houses of H
Legislature of two Or more State"s under this constitutional provision is that
Parliament which has otherwise no power to legislate with respect to a matter,
'.
•
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 s.C.R.

A except as provided in Articles 249 and 250, becomes entitled to legislate with
I regard to such matter and the State Legislature passing the resolutions cease- to
have power to make law relating to that matter. The resolutions operate as
abdication or surrender of the powers of the State Legislatures with respect
to the matter which is the subject of the resolutions and such matter is placed
entirely in the hands of Parliament and Parliament alone can then legislate
with respect to each. It is as if ·such matter is lifted out of list II and placed
B in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. A plain natural cons- •
truction of the language of Clauses (!) and (2) of Article 252 makes this
position clear. It was in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 352 that a resolu-
•
tion was passed by the Andhra Prade'sh Legislative Council on 7th April, 1972
~
to the effect that "the imposition of ceiling of urban immovable property and
acquisition of. such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters concerned
•
therewith or ancilliary and incidental ·thereto should be regulated in the State
c of Andhra Pradesh by Parliament by law" and on identical resolution in the
same terms was passed on the next day by the Andhra Pradesh LegfsJative
Assembly. The result was that at the date when the Andhra Pradesh Act was
enacted, Parliament alone was competent to legislate with respect to ceiling
on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in exces·s of
the ciling and all connected, ancilHary or incidental matters, and the Andhra
Pradesh Legislature stood denuded of its power to legislate on that subject.
.D [1149 A, E-H, 1150 A-C]
Union of India v. V. B. Choudhary, [1979] 3 SCR 802; followed.
2. Under the powers thus transfeired Parliament enacted the Central Act
with a view to imposing ceiling on vacant land, other tnan land mainly used for
the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration. The Central Act
·imposes a ceiling on holding of land in urban agglomeration other than land
E Which i's mainly used for the purpose of agriculture and agriculture in this
connection includes horticulture, but does not include raising of grass, dairy
farming, poultry farming, breeding live-stock and such cultivation or the grow·
ing of such plants as maY be prescribed by the Rules, and, moreover, in order
to fall within the exclusion, the land must be entered in the revenue er land
record before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture and must
also not have been ·specified in rhe master plan for a purpose other than agri·
F culture. tl159 C-F]
3. It is no doubt true that if the And.bra Pradesh Act seeks to impose
ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration, it would be outside t"hc
area of its legislative competence, because it cannot provide for imposition of (
ceiling on urban immovable property. But the only urban agglomerations in
the State of Andhra Pradesh recognised in the Central Act were those referred
to in Section 2(n) (A) (i) end there can be no doubt that so far as these
G urban agglomerations are concerned, it \\US not within the legislative compe·
tence of· the And.bra Pradesh Legislature to provide for imposition of ceiling
on land situate within these urban agglomerations. But, the Andhra Pradesh
Act is not out side the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legisla·
tive in so far as lands situate in the other areas of the State of Andhra
Pradesh are concerned. ·Any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh with
a population of more than one lakh could be notified as an urban aggleme-
H ration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the Central Act but until it is so notified
it would not be an urban agglomeration and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature
would have legislative competence to provide for imposition of ceilin& on
TUMATI VENKAISH V. A. P. 1145

land situate within such area. No "SOOner such area is notified to be an A
urbari agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to land situate
within such area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would con-
L tinue ro .be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land. The
/' Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with
reference to this- date that the surplus holding of land in excess of the ceiling
• "rea was required to be determined and if there was any surplus it was ro
• be surrendered to the State Government. Therefore, in an area other
that comprised in the urban agglometations referted to in section 2 (n)(A)
than B
(i), land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area would be lieble ro
•
• be determined as on !st January 1975 under fhe Aildhra Pradesh Act and only
land within the ceiling area will be allowed to remain with him. It is only
in respect of land remaining with a person whether an individual or a family
' after the operation of the Andhra Pradesh Act, thar the Central Act would

,
apply if and when the area in question is notified to. be an urban agglomera-
· tion under section 2(n) (A) (il) of the Central Act. [1155 G-H, 1156 A-G]
c
Merely because an area may possibly in the future be notified as an urban
agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii). of the Central Act, the Andhra
Pradesh Legislature would not cease to have competence to legislate with
1'espect to ceiling on land iitllate in such area even thou&h it is not -an urban
agglomeration at the date of the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Act. Un~ D
doubtedly, when an area is notified as an urbe.n agglomeration ·under
section 2(n)(A)(ii), the Central Act would apply to Ianvituate in such
area and the Andhm Pradesh Act wonld cease to have application but by
that time the Andhra Pradesh Act would have already operated to determine
the ceiling on holding of land falling within the definition in section 3 (i) of
that Act and situate within such area. Therefore, the whole of the Andhra
Pradesh Act is neither ultmvires nor void as being outSide the area of legis· E
lative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It i1 only in respect
of land situate within the urban agglomerations rcfefred to in section 2(n)
(A) (i) of the Central Act that the Andhra Prad.,h Act would not apply but
it would be fully applicable in rOSpect of land situate in all the other area. of
the State of Andhra Pradesh. [1156 G-R, 1157 A-Bl

4. A divided minor calinot be exclud\;d from the 'family unit' as defu!ed P
in section 3 (f) of the Andhro. Pradesh Act. Thllt would be flying in the
' face of sections 3 (f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Act.

I! is true that a ptlrtitiott affected prior to 2nd May 1972 is not invaliditted
by the Andhra Pradeoh Act and therefore any pt<iperty which come• to the
t share of a divided minor son would in law belong to him and would not
be l!Uble to be n!garded as pan of jbh'lt family property. Bui nrider the defi- G
nition of faniily unit in section :!(f) tile dividc!d minor ;on wb~ld clearly be
included in the family unit and by reason of section -4 his land whether self·
acquired or obtained on partition would be liable to be clubbed with tlie
land heli! by the other me'mll<irs of the fail:tily unit. The lltnd· obtaintd by
the divided minor son on partition would be liable to be aggregated with fhe
lands of other !1!61!!titrs of' the fmnily unit nm b<!cause the partition is in-
valid but beoouse tl1!;' !!Ind· held by him howsoever acquired is 'liable to be
clubbed togothtr with the 1..00. of others for fho purpose of applying the
ceiling area to the family unit. . (1151 C, F~iIJ
14-610 SCI/80
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 s.C.R.
A 5. The Andbra Pradesh Act is admittedly an agrarian reform legislation
and it is protected against challenge on the ground of infraction of Articles
14, 19 and 31 by the protective umbrella of Article 31A. (1158 B.C]

6. The definition of 'family unit' is not violative of Article 14 'of the ~
Constitution by including a minor son in "the family unit while excluding
a major son from it. (1158 A] •
B
Seth Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, (1980] 3 SCR p. 1181 followed. •
Civn./ORIGJN.AL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 14-32, 902,
879, 1130--32, 1121, 1172, 1215, 1201, 1127, 1128, 1222, 1224,
•
1223, 1275, 1129, 1523, 1539, 1280, 863, 1361, 1323, 1375, 1621,,
c 1374, 1410, 1628, 2117, 1961, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920 & 2290 of
1978 & 3447 & 3450/79.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgmeuts and Orders dated
13.10.1977 etc. etc. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Peti-
tion No. 1872/77 etc. etc.
D AND
WRIT PETITION Nos : 3973, 3998, 3836, 4198, 4199, 4200, 4210,
4263, 4317, 4318, 4414, 4256, 4537 and 4500 of 1978.
F. S. Nariman, K. Krishna Rao and K. Rajendro Choudhary for
the Appellants in CA Nos. 14 to 23, 25-29, 1223-1224 & 1628/7&
B 3447 and 3449/79.
A. Subba Rao for the Appellants in CA No. 1126 & WP No8.
3973, 4198, 4199, 4200, 4317, 4318 & 4210/78.
A. V. V. Nair for the Appellanls in CA Nos. 1215, 1361, 2117,
1286 and W.P. No. 1374/78.
I' G. S. Ramo Rao for the Appellants in CA No. 1121 & Petitioners
in WP Nos. 4256 and 3836/78.
Vepa Sarathi and B. Kanta Rao for the Appellants/Petitioners '
tn CA Nos. 24, 30, 32, 1172, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1261, 1323 & 1275/
78 and WP Nos. 4263, 4500 & 4537 /78.
G
S. Venkata Reddy and G. Narsimhulu for the Appellants
in CA Nos. 31, 902, 879, 1130-32, 1410, 1621, 1917-20, 1961/78
& 1373/78.
A. K. Ganguli for the Appellants in CAs 1222 and 863/78.

B A. v. Rangom for the Petitioners in WP No. 3998/78.
S. BalokrishTiizn for the Petitioner in WP 44~4 /78. .
V. S. Desai and if. Subba Rao for the Applicant/Intervener.
TUMATl VENKAISH v. A. P. (Bhagwati, /.) 1147

K. K. Venugopal Addl. Sol. Genl., Ram Chandra Reddy Adv. A
Genl. A. P. and B. Parthasarthy for the appearing respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,

BHAGWATI, J.-These appeals by special leave and the writ peti-
• tions represent a last but desparate attempt by the class of land-holders
• in Andhra Pradesh to defeat an agrarian reform legislation enacted
B
by the State for the benefit of the weaker sections of community. It
• is indeed a matter of regret that a statute intended to strike at concen-
• tration of land in the hands of a few and to act as a great equaliser by
reducing inequality in holding of land between the haves and the have-
(. nots should have practical!y remained unimplemented for a period of c
JI' over seven years. Unfortunately, this is the common fate of much
of our social welfare legislation.

We can boast of some of the finest legislative measures calculated
to ameliorate the socio-economic conditions of the poor and the de-
prived and to reach social and economic justice to them, but regret- D
ably, a large part of such legislation has remained merely on paper,
and the benefits of such legislation have not reached the common man·
to any appreciable extent. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceil-
ing on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as the Andhra Pradesh Act) which is challenged in the present appeals
,).-. was enacted by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature on 1st January 1973. E
Soon after its enactment, the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pra-
desh Act was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on
various grounds, but a full Bench of the High Court negatived the
challenge and held the Andhra Pradesh Act to be constitutionally
valid. Though this judgment was delivered by the High Court as
early as 11th April, 1973, no effective steps for implementation of the
Andhra Pradesh Act could be taken, since the Andhra Pradesh Act
':\ merely remained on the statute book and for some inexplicable rea-
son, it was not brought into force until !st January 1975. Even after
the Andhra Pradesh Act was brought into force, not much enthusiasm
was shown by the Government in implementing its provisions and in
' the mean while, it was found necessary to amend the legislation and
hence the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultuntl
G'

Holdings) Amendment Act 1977 was enacted with retrospective effect
from 1st January 1975 and by this amending Act certain amend-
ments were made which included inter alia the introduction of section
4A. We shall presently refer to the relevant provisions of the amen- H
ded Andhra Pradesh Act, but before we do .so, it is necessary to
point out that as soon as the amending Act was passed, another round
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

A of litigation was started by the la!lldholders by filing writ petitions
in the High Court challenging once again the constitutional validity
of the Andhra Pradesh Act. There were several grounds on which
the constitutional validity was challenged but the main ground was
that by reason of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling
& Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act),
B the Andhra Pradesh Act had become void and inoperative. -Certain
other questions involving the interpretation of the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Act were also raised in some of the writ petitions,
.
•
\

but they too need not be mentioned here, because in the course of the •
hearing we made it clear to the parties that we would examine on! y
c tionsconstitutional
the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Act and other ques-
could be agitated by the landholders in the appeals filed by them
against the orders determining surplus land. It was pointed out to
us that £ome of the landholders had not filed appeals within the pres-
cribed time and grave injustice would therefore result to them if these
questiom were not decided by us. But the learned Additional Solici-
D tor General appearing on behalf of the State fairly stated before us
that if appeals have been filed beyond time or are filed within a
month of disposal of ihese appeals, the delay in filing the appeals
would be condoned. Turning to the constitutional challenge which
in those days was required to be decided by a full Bench of 5 Judges
of the High Court, it was held that the enactment of the Central Act
E did noti have the effect of invalidating the whole of the Andhra Pradesh
Act, but since the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act were repug-
nant to the provisions of the Central Aet so far as concerned land sat-
isfying both the definition of '1and" in the Andlira Pradesh Act and
the definition of "vacant land" in the Central Act, the Andhra Pra-
desh Act was held not applicable to "vacant land" falling within
F the ambn of the Central Act. The High Court accordingly granted
a declaration to ibis effect to the landholders, but save for ibis limited
relief, dismissed the writ petitions in all other respects, since in the
opinion of the High Court there was no substance in any of the other l
contentions raised on behalf of the landholders. The landholders
thereupon preferred the present appeals after obtaining special leave
G from this Court.
The principal contention urged on behalf of the landholders in
support of the appeals was that the Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra
vires and void as being outside the legislative competence of the
Andhra Pradesh Legislature. This contention was based on two res-
H olutions, one dated 7th April 1972 passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Council and the other dated 8th April 1972 paS<Sed by
the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly under clause ( 1) of Article
TUMATI VENKAISH V. A. P. (Bhagwati, !.) 1149

252 of the Constitution. This Article carves out an exception de- A
rogating frol!l the normal distribution of legislative powers between
the Union and the States under Article 246 and is in the following
tef!Ds :
, Art. 252(1) : If it appears to the legislatures of two or
I more States to be desirable that any of the matters with
B
reipect to which Parli.anu>I\t has no power to make laws
..• for the States except as provided in Articles Z49 al\d 250
should 111' regulated in such State11 by Parliainent by law, and
if rewlutio!J$ to that eject are passec;I by !Ill the IJoug,es of
tlw Legislatures of tho5e States, it shall be lawful for Par·
liarnent to pass an Act for regulating thllt matter accord- c
~y. am! any A.ct so passed shall ajlply to such Sl;ltes
apd to any othor State by which i¢ is adop!eQ afte!'Wlll'.ds
by re~alution J;lllSsed in that behalf by the I!o~ or, where
there are two IU>uses, by each of tne House~ of the Legis-
lature of that State.
(Z) An N:t 'o JM~•d by Parllamc11t 1n1y ho qemi- D
«i or r'~ed by JI\ A.ct of Parliall\ellt plli&Cd ot adojltc4
iII like iiw~r but '~U not, as rl:i~I~ ...,_y State to whicb
it apPlilli, bi amoad«I or repealod by a11; Act of !114 ~gis
lature of that State."
1' · The effect of passing al' resolutions by the Hou&ell of Legislature of E
two of more Stat~ 11nd~r this cotutitutiolllll provision is that Parliu-
ment wJiich has othefWise no power to l,gis1'te with respect to a
matter, except &s pnlvidro in A,rtic~ 249 and 250, becomes
entitled to legislate with respect to such matter and the State Legis-
latures passing the resolutions cease to have power to make law
relating to that matter. The resolutions operate 3$ abdication or F
'
\ surrender of the powers of the State Legislatures with respect to the
matter which is the subject of the resolutions and such matter is
placed entirely in the hands of Parliament and Parliament alone can
then legislate with respect to it. It is as if such matter is lifted out

' of List II and placed in Lilst I of the Seventh Sched\lk to the Cons-
titution. This would seem to be quite clear on a plain natural G
construct10n of the language of clauses (1) aQd (2) of Article 252
and no authority is necessary in support of it, but if any was wanted,
it may be found in the decision of a Full Bench of five Judges of
this Court in Union of India v. V. V. Chaudhary(')-in fact the same
Bench as the present one--where an identical view has been taken. H
It was in pursuance of clause (1) of this Article that a Resolution
------
(!) 11979] 3 SCR 802.
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council on 7th April
1972 to the effect that "the imposition of a ceiling on urban immov-
able property and acqnisiti'CJn of such property in excess of the
ceiling and all matters connected therewith or ancilliary and incidental -l
thereto should be regulated in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Par-

B
liament by law" and an identical resolution in the same tem1s was '
passed on the next day by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Assembly.
Similar resolutions were also passed by the Houses of Legislature of
'
some other States, though there is no material to show as to when
they were passed. It was however common ground that at best
some of these resolutions were passed prior to the enactment of the
c Andhra Pradesh Act. The result was that at the date when the J
Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, Parliament alone was competent ''"'\
to legislate with respect to ceiling on urban immovable property
and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and all con-
nected, ancilliary or incidental matters, and the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature stood denuded of its power to legislate on that subject.
,D Now the Andbra Pradesh Act, as its long title shows, was enacted
to consolidate and mnend the law relatirig to the fixation of ceiling
on agricultural holdings and taking over of surplus land and ·matters
connected therewith. On its plain terms, it applies to land situate in any
part of Andhra Pradesh. Section 3 ( f) creates an artificial unit called
'family unit' by defining it as follows :
E "Sec. 3 ( f) "family unit" means-
( i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or
spouses, snch individual, the spouse or spouses and
their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters;
if any;
F (ii) in the case of an individual who. has no spouse such
individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried /
minor daughters;
(iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced hus-
band and who has not remarried, such individual
and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters,
G whether in his custody or not; and •
(iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both
dead, their minor sons and unmarriej minor daugh-
ters. T
Explanation-Where a minor son is married, his
H wife and their offspring, if any, shall also be deemed
to be members of the family unit of which the minor
son is a member;
TUMATI VBNKAISH v. A. P. (Bhagwati, /,) 1151

The term "land" is defined in section 3 (j) to mean "land which A
· is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, or
for purposes ancillary thereto, including horticulture, forest land,
· pasture land, waste land, plantation and tope; and includes land
deemed to be agricultural land under this Act". Explanation I to
this definition enacts a rebuttable presumption that land held under
• Ryotwari settlement shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed B
• to be 'land' under the Andhra Pradesh Act. Section 3 ( o) defines
'person' as including inter alia an individual and a faintly unit. Sec
•
• tion 10 is the key section which imposes ceiling on the holding of
land by providing that if the extent of the holding of a person is in
excess of the ceiling area, the person shall be liable to surrender the
'1and held in excess. If therefore an individual or a family unit c
holds land in excess of the ceiling area, the excess would have to be
~urrendered to the State Government. But the question then arises,
what is the ceiling area above which a person cannot hold land. The
answer is provided by section 4 .which reads as follows : -
"Sec. 4 (1) The ceiling area in the case of a family D
unit ·consisting of not more than five members shall be an
extent of land equal to one standard holding.
(2) The ceiling area in the case of a family unit con-
sisting of more than five members shall be an extent of
land equal to one standard holding plus an additional extent .E
of one-fifth of one standard holding for every such mem-
ber in excess of five, so however that the· ceiling area shall
not exceed two standard holdings.
(3) The ceiling area in the case of every individual
who is not a member of a family unit, and in the case of
any other person shall be an exte 0 t of land equal to one
standard holding.
Explanation :-In the case of a family unit, the ceil"
ing area shall be applied to the aggregate of the lands held
by all the· members of the family unit".
G
It will thus be seen that the ceiling area in the case of an individual
who is not a member of a family unit is equivalent to one sfandard
holding and so also in the case of a family unit with not more than
five members, the ceiling area is the same, but if the family unit con-
sists of more than five members, the ceiling area would stand incre-
ased by one-fifth of one standard holding for every additional member H
of the family unit, subject however to the maximum limit of 2 stan-
dard holdings. When the ceiling area is applied t<;> the holding of a
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

A family u¢t, the Explanation requires that the lands held by all the
members of the family unit shall be aggregated for the purpose of
computing the holding of the family unit. Where, therefore, there
ill a family unit consisting of father, mother and three minor sons or ·~.
daughters, the lands held by all these persons would have to be clul>-
bed together and then the ceiling area applied to the aggregate ho)d-
B ing. There is no distii:iction made in the definition of 'family uuit•
between a divided minor son and an undivided minor son. Both
stand on the same footing and a di<vided minor son is as much a mem-
ber of the family unit as an undivided minor son, and consequently
the lands held by a divided minor son would have to be included in
the holding of the family unit for the purpose of application of the
C . ceiling area. Section 7 invalidates certain transfers of land and pro-
vides for inclusion of such lands in the holding of an individual or
·~\
a family unit. Then there is a provision in section 8 for furnishing
a declaration in respect of his holding by every person whose land
exceeds the ceiling area and the Tribunal is required by section 9 to
D hold w. ~quiry ~d ~s ttn order determining the land held in excess
of the ceiling arCtt• Such l;md has to be surrendered by the person
holding the land and on such surrender, the Revenue Divisional Offi-
cer is empowered under section 11 to take possession of the land
which thereupon vests in the State Government free from all encum-
brances. Section 14 provides inter alia that the land vested in the
E State Governmeat 1>hall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultu-
ral labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses
or house-sites or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dep-
endent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture/or for purposes an-
cilliary thereto in such manner as may be prescribed by the Rnles,
subject to a proviso that as far as practicable not less than one-half
F of the total extent of land so allotted or transferre_d shall be allotted:
or transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled /
Tribes. Section 15 enacts a provision for payment of compensation
for fand vested in the State Government at the rates specified in the
Second Schedule. These are the only relevant provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Act which need to be referred to for the purpose of
G the present appeals.

We may now tum to examine the relevant provisions of the
Central Act. This Act was enacted by Parliament pursuant to the M
authority conferred upon it by the resolutions passed by the
Houses of Legislature of several States~ including the State o' Amllira
H Pradesh under clause (1) of Article 252. It received the assent of the
President on 17th February 1976 and as its long tide and recita1 'hows
it was enacted to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant
TUMATI VBNKA!SH V. A. P. (Bhi:zgwati, !.) ll 53

land is urban agglomerations for the acquisition of such land in excess A
of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such
land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing
the conc.eutr.ation of urban land in the hands of a few persons and
speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about
an eqii.itabli: distribution of land in urban agglomeflltiOJJs to subserve
the common good. We shall ri:i;er to a few material p!Oyisions of this
Act. ~i<m 2(a) (i) l!efines "appointed day" to mean in relation
..• to any State to wbich tJiis Act applies i11 the first instimce which in-
cludes the State of Andhra Pradesh - t,he date of iutroduction of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill, 1976 in Parliament. This
was t!Je Bill which culminated in the Act and it was introduced in
Parlia111ent on iSth Jam1ary 1976. Consequently, this date would
be the 'appointed day' for the purpose of applicability of the Act to
the State of Andhra Pradesh. The definition of "family" in section 2
(f) is materially in the same terms as the definition of "family unit"
in the Andhra Pradesh Act. Then follow two imp<;>rtant !Wfiuitions
which needed to be set out in extenso. The word "Pfrson" is defined
in section 2(i) as including intu alia an 'individual' and the 'i!a.mily'.
Section 2(n) defines "urban agglomeration" in the following terms :
"&ec.2(n) (A) in relation to any State of Ullion terri-
tory specified in column ( 1 ) of Scheduk l, mllllllS--
(i) lbe url:mn i1wo1;1.eration &l)ecilied in the con~pon
diPJ: entry in column ( 2) tb!:reof and inctndes tlw
periphe.raJ a.rea specified ip the corresponding entry
in column (3) thereof; and
(ii) any other area which the State Government may,
with the previous approval of the Central Govern-
ment, having regard to its location, population (popu-
lation being more than one lakh) and such other rel-
evant factors as the circumstance of the case may
require, by notification in the Official Ga~ette, dec-
lare to be an urban agglomeration and any agglomer-
ation so declared shall be deemed to belong to cate-
gory D in that Schedule and the peripheral area there-
for shall be one kilometre;
(B) xx xx xx xx xx"
Tire term 'urban land' is defined in section 2 ( o) to mean:-
Sec. 2 ( o) (i) : any land situated within the limits of an
urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master
plan; or
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

.A (ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or where
the master plan does not refer to any land as urban
land, any land within the limits of an urban agglome-
ration and situated in any area included within the
local limits of a municipality (by whatever name dill-
ed), a notified area committee, a town area committee, ,'
a city and town committee, a small town committee,
a cantonment board or a panchayat, but does not in-
clude any such land which is mainly used for the plir-
pose of agriculture.
••
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause and clause (q),-
(A) "agriculture" includes horticulture, but does not in-
clude--
(i) raising of grass,
(ii) dairy farming,
'.D (iii) poultry farming,
(iv) breeding of live-stock, and
(v) such cultivation, or the growing of such plant, as may
be prescribed.

(B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for
the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the
revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the .
purpose of agriculture;
(C) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B)
of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly
used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been speci-
fied in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture; " (

Section 2 ( q) gives a definition of "vacant land" by providing that
"vacant land" means, subject to certain e.xceptions which are not mat-
-0 erial, land not being land mainly used for the purpose of agricultur!,
in an urban agglomeration. Section 3 is the rebuttal section which
imposes ceiling on holding of 'vacant land' by providing that:
"Sec. 3. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, on
and from the commencement of this Act, no person shall be
H entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit
in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-section
(2) of section 1."
TUMATI VENKAISH V. A. P. (Bhagwati, J.) 1155

Section 4 divides urban agglomeration into categories A, B, C A
and D lays down different ceiling limits for these different categories.
Then there is a provision in section 5 invalidating in certain circums-
tances the transfer of vacant land made at any time during the period
commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement
of the Act. The procedure for determining "vacant land" held in
excess of the ceiling limit is laid down in sections 6 to 9 and section B
1O enacts a provision for acquisition of such land held in excess of
•• such limit. Section 23 provides for disposal of vacant land acquired
uJ&!ier the Act and it empowers the State Government to allot such
vacant land to "any person for any purpose relating to or in connec-
tion with any industry or for providing residential accommodation of
snch type as may be approved by the State Government to the employees
c
of any industry. It will thus be seen that the Central Act imposes a
ceiling on holding of land in urban agglomeration other than land which
is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture and agriculture in this
connection inclndes horticulture, bnt does not include raising of grass,
dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding live-stock and cultivation or D
the growing of such plants as may be prescribed by the Rules, and,
moreover, in order to fall within the exclusion, the land must be entered
in the revenue or land record before the appointed day as for the
purpose of agriculture and must also not have been specified in the
master plan for a purpose other than agriculture.
. Now, as we have already pointed out above, the Andhra Pradesh E
Legislature had, at the time when the Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted,
no power to legislate with respect to ceiling on ·urban immovable
.property. That power stood trnnsferred to parliament and as a first
step towards the eventual imposition of ceiling on immovable property
of every other description, the Parliament enacted the Central Act with
a view to imposing ceiling on vacant land, other than land mainly
r
used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration. The
argument of the landholders was that the Andhra Pradesh Act sought
to impose ceiling on land in the whole of Andhra Pradesh including
land situate in urban agglomeration and since the concept of agglo-
meration defined in section 2(n) of the Central Act was an expansive G
' concept and any area with an ei1isting or future population of more
than one lakh could be notified to be an uban agglomeration, the
whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra vires and void as being
outside the legislative competance of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature.
This argument plausible though it may seem, in our opinion, is unsus-
tainable. It is no doubt true that if the Andhra Pradesh Act seeks H
to impose ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration, it
weuld be outside the area of its legislative competence, because it
!
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

A
cannot provide for imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property.
But the only urban agglomerations in the State of Andhra Pradesh:
recognised in the Central Act were those referred to in section 2(n}
(A) (ii) and there can be no doubt that so far as these urban agglo·
merations are concerned, it was not within the legislative competence· •
B of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to provide for imposition of ceiling f
on land situate within these urban aglliomerations. It is, however,
dil!icult to see how the Andhra Pradesh Act could be said to be outsil;!e
the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in so far as
..
•
land situate in the other areas of the State of Andhra Praclesh is
concerned. We accept that any other area in the State of Andhra
c Pradesh with a population of more than om> lakh could be notit)!,Xl
as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(ii) of th~ Central
Act but until it is SP notified it would not be an urban 11gglomeration
and the Andhrn Pradesh Legislature would have legislative competence
tp provide for imposition of ceiling on lane! situate within such area.
No SOPner such area is notified to bt all urb!ln aggloiru;ratlon, tllC
D Central Act would apply in relation to land situ/lte within such ania,
but until that hiippens the Andhra Pradesh A.ct would continue to be
applicable to determine the ceilin,c o• ltol!lins of land. It m.ay be
noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st Jaa11ary
1975 and it was with reference to tltis !lile thii surplus holding of lam!
in excess of the ceiling area wa! requirtd to be determined a11d if
E there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State Govern-
ftient. It mnst therefore follow that in an area other than that
comprised in the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (A)
(i), land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area would be liable
to be determined as on 1st January 1975 under _the Andhra Pradesh
Act and only land within the ceiling area will be allowed to remain
I!'
with him. It is only in respect of land remaining with a person whether J
an individual or a family after the operation of the Andhra Pradesh
Act, that the Central Act would apply if and when the area in question
is notified to be an urban agglomeration under section 2(n) (A) (ii)
of the Central Act. We fail to see how it can at all be contended
G that merely because an area may possibly in the future be nctified
as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A) (ii) of the Central
•
Act, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature would cease to have competence
to legislate with respect to ceiling on land situate in such area even
though it is not an urban agglomeration at the date of the enactment
of the Andhra Pradesh Act. l'ndoubtedly, when an area is notified as
H an urban agglomeration under section 2(nl (Al (ii), the Central Act
would apply to land situate in such area and the Andhra Pradesh Act
would cease to have application but by that time the Andhra Pradesh
TUMAT! VENKAISH V. A. P. (Bhagwati, /.) llS'/

Act would have already operated to determine the ceiling on holding
>Of land falling within the definition in section 3 (j) of that Act and
situate within such area. It is therefpre not possible to uphold the.
contention of the landholders that the whole of the. Andhra Pradesh
Act is ultra vires and void as being outside the area of legislative com-
petence of the .Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It is only in respect oI
land situate within the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2 ( n) B
(A) (i) of the Central Act that the Andhra Pradesh Act would not
apply but it would be fully applicable in respect of land situate in all
•
• 1he other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The next contention nrged on behalf of the landholders was that
on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Andllra c
Pradesh Act, a divided minor son was not liable to be included in
"family unit" as defined in section 3 (f) of that Act. the argument
was that sub-section (2) of section 7 did not invalidate all partitions
of joint family property but struck only against partitions effected on
or before 2nd May 1972 and thus by necessary implication recognised
1he validity of partitions affected prior to that date. If therefore a D
partition was effected prior to 2nd May 1972 and under that partition
a minor son become divided from his father and mother, the divided
minor son could not be included in the family unit and his property
could not be clubbed with that of his father and mother, because
otherwise it would amount to invalidation of the partition though sec-
tion 7, sub-section (2) clearly recognised such partition as vnlid. This E
argument is clearly fallacious in that it fails to give .due effect to the
definition of family unit in section 3 (f) and the provisions of section 4.
It is undoubtedly true that a partition effected prior to 2nd May 1972
is not invalidated by the Andhra Pradesh Act and therefore any pro-
perty which comes to the share of a divided minor son would in law
F
belong to him and would not be liable to be required as part of joint
\ family property. But under the definition of family unit in section 3 (I)
·~ the divided minor son would clearly be included in the family unit and
by reason of section 4 his land whether self-acquired or obtained on
partition would be liable to be clubbed with the land held by the other
members of the family unit. The land obtained by the divided minor G
son on partition would be liable to be aggregated with the lands of
other members of the family unit not because the partition is invalid
.... ~J
but because the land held by him howsoever acquired is liable to be
.~ -~
clubbed together with the lands of others for the purpose of applying
the ceiling area to tlJe family unit. We do not therefore see how a
divided minor son can be excluded from the family unit. That would H
be flying in the face of sections 3 (f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh
Act.
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198:0] 3 s.c.R.

A Then a contention was advanced on behalf of the landholders that
the definition of "family unit" was violative of Article 14, of the
Constitution in that it made unjust discrimination between a minor son
and the major son by including minor son in the "family unit" while
excluding a major son from it. This contention has already been dealt

B
with by learned brother Tulzapurkar, J. in the judgment delivered •
by him today in the Haryana Land Ceiling matters and we need not t
repeat what he bad already stated there while repelling this contention.

••
Moreover, this contention is, no longer open to the landholders since
the Andhra Pradesh Act is admittedly an agrarian reform legislation ·
and it is protected against challenge on the ground of infraction of
Articles 14, 19 and 31 by the protective umbrella of Article 31A. We
c do not therefore see any substance in the contentions urged on behalf
of the landholders and we accordingly dismiss the appeals and the
writ petitions with costs.

S.R. Appeals & Petitions dismissed.

.__,.

(