AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this revision Petition filed u/s 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (hereinafter-referred to as the Act), a short but interesting question arises, as to whether in respect of Ac. 11-50 cents of registered dry garden land, the conversion factors of Table No. IX relating to garden lands apply, or whether the conversion factors relating to dry lands of Classes G to K in Table No. VII. apply. The question arises this way:-In the holding of the declarant (the petitioner), the extents of Ac. 4, 82 cents in survey No. 74, Ac-5-22 cents in Survey No. 30, and Ac, 1-46 cents in survey No, 103/1, aggregating to 11-50 cents situate in Chirapudi village. Kothapeta Taluk of East Godavari District, are included. The said lands are shown in the revenue accounts as ''Registered Dry Coconut Garden lands".
According to the definition of "Dry Land" in Section 3 (e) of the Act "dry land" means land registered as dry, manavari asamantari, beghat or garden land, or special rate dry land, in the land revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such: and includes any other land, excluding wet land,"
Dry lands'' fall within clauses G to K of the Table in Section 5 (1) of the Act. The ceiling limit in respect of ''dry lands'' falling within classes G to K, vary from 354 acres to 54 Acres.
Section 5 (1) proviso (vi) of the Act which was not in the original Bill but subsequently introduced at the the time of passing of Bill, reads as follows:-
In the case of any lanka or padugai land or any Land on which a coconut garden, guava of standard holding shall in no case exceed 10-93 hectares (27 acres).
Under Rule 5 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules), in computing the holding of a person or a family unit consisting of lands of different Classes, each land shall be placed in the appropriate Class in accordance with its classification as shown in the First Schedule to the Act, and the extent of the standard holding shall be determined in respect of each Class of land in accordance with section 5, increasing it wherever it is required under the provisos to sub-section (i),
The Explanation to rule 65 (ii) reads as follows:-
In the case of lanka or a padugai land or a land on which a coconut garden, guava garden or grape garden is raised, the land shall first be classified in the appropriate Class according to the First Schedule to the Act and the standard holding shall be computed accordingly. Where the standard holding of such Class of land so computed is in excess such Class of land so computed is in excess of the maximum specified in proviso (v) to section (5), the extent of the standard holding shall be restricted to such maximum.
Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 5 of the rules provides that, "the relative proportion of the extent of land of each Class to the extent of a standard holding of that Class shall be worked out by dividing the extent of land in that class by the extent, of the standard holding for the same class with reference to the conversion factor in the relevant Tables: and the aggregate of all such proportions, which, "shall be worked out upto four decimal places, shall be the extent of the holding of the person in terms of the standard holding."
Table VII specifies the conversion factors for dry lands of Classes G to K, whereas Table IX relates to conversion factors of lands which are lankas or padugais or on which coconut gardens or grape gardens are raised.
The foot-note to Table IX, reads as follows:-
This table would apply only if the class of land has a standard holding exceeding 27 acreas.
Before the Land Reforms Tribunal, it was argued for the declarant that Table No. IX showing the conversion factor in respect of coconut gardens, could be applied only when the extent of the garden land held by the Declarant is more than 27 acres in view of the note at the bottom of the said table. But this contention was rejected by the Land Reforms Tribunal, holding that according to Table IX, the ceiling had to be restricted to 2? acres as specified in section 5 (i) proviso (vi) of the Act, But the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, took a different view and held that the ceiling limit in respect of coconut gardens or lankas or padugais, is provided in the proviso (vi) to section 5(1) of the Act and not by Table IX or the foot-note, that it was clear from the foot, note, that the Table IX did not apply to lands of coconut gardens etc. which are less than 27 acres, and that a the conversion Table VII relating to dry lands should be applied in the case of Ac. 11,50 cents of coconut garden.
In this revision petition, it is contended by Sri Sardar Ali Khan, learned Government pleader, that the lands have been registered as "dry lands" fall within Classes G to K of the Table in section 5 (1) of the Act, the standard holding of each of the said classes G to K, is more than 27 acres and in view of the foot-note to Table No. IX, the conversion factors contained in Table IX, apply to the lands in question which are coconut gardens.
On the other hand it is contended by Sri G.R. Subbarayan, learned counsel for the respondents (declarant,) that garden land is included in the definition of ''dry land'' and "dry land" fall within classes G to K of the Table in Sec. 5 of the Act, and the standard holding in respect of each of the said classes, is more than 27 acres and when the lands are found to be registered "dry lands" falling within classes G to K, the question of treating the said land as "lands on which coconut gardenes are raised" does not arise. His contention is that there is distinction between the lands on which coconut gardens were already raised and were registered as "dry in the revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such and the lands on which coconut gardens are raised. The learned counsel submits that "dry land" means, land registered as dry, manavari, asmantari, baghat or garden land or special rate dry and, in the land revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such: and the said lauds fall within classes G to K of the Table in Sec. 5 (1) of the Act whereas in Sec, 51 proviso (v) the expression used is ''land on which coconut garden is raised'' and the same expression occurs in the Explanation to Rule 5 (ii) of the Rules. Similarly, the heading of the Table No. IX shows that it is applicable only to "lands on which coconut gardens etc. are raised."
The learned counsel therefore submits that there is a distinction between a land registered as garden land in the revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such, and a land on which coconut garden is raised that section 5 (1) proviso (vi) of the Act, and the explanation to Rules 5 (ii) of the Rules, as well as Table No. IX, do not apply to a land registered as garden land but only to a land on which a coconut garden is raised, that the tense of the expression is "raised" in the proviso (vi) to Section 5 (1) of the Act. and the Explanation to Rule 5 (ii)of the rules, and of the expression ''are raised,'' show that they do not apply to lands on which coconut gardens had been raised long prior to the commencement of the Act and which had been registered as ''garden lands'' in the revenue accounts. In this connection, be has invited my attention to the decisions in Maradana Mosque (Board of Trustees) V. Badi-ud-Din Mahamud & Another 1966 I AER. P. 545, Mahadeolal Kanodia Vs. The Administrator-general of West Bengal, and some passages in the ''principles of Statutory Interpretation'' by G.P. Singh.
The learned counsel further submits that the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act, cannot be given an extended meaning, that it cannot alter the classification prescribed by the main section 5 (1) and that the proviso should be construed harmoniously with the main previsions of section 5 (1) to which it is the proviso; and he relied upon the decision in Ram Narain Sons Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others, Abdul Jabar Butt Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, and Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Excise, Bihar and Others,
After hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel for the Government and the respondent, I feel that there is considerable force in the contention of Sri Subbarayan, that the lands which are registered as ''garden lands'' in the revenue accounts of the Government and are assessed as auch, fall within the definition of ''dry land'' and they cannot be treated us lands on which coconut gardens are raised. The expression, ''land registered as garden land in the revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such'' is different from the expression "land on which coconut garden is raised". The intention of the Legislature appears to be that in respect of lands which were already registered as ''garden lands'' in the revenue accounts of the Government, they should be classified as ''dry lands'' giving a higher ceiling area as prescribed in classes G to K and that in the case of lands which are not registered as ''garden lands'' but with were sought to be converted into garden lands with a view to claim a larger ceiling area, the Legislature intended to cut it down to the ceiling limit of 27 acres as mentioned in the proviso (vi) to section 5 (1) of the Act. Moreover, the expression "land on which account garden is raised", occurs in section 5 (1), proviso (vi), and the Explanation to Rule 5 (ii) of the Rules. Table IX also uses the expression, "lands on which coconut gardens are raised. "Thus, there appears to be a clear out distinction between the land which is registered as "garden land" in the revenue accounts or assessed as such falling within the definition of "dry land", and land which is not so registered but on which a garden is raised. Further, if the foot-note were to be construed in the manner suggested by the learned Government Pleader, it applies only to lands registered as garden lands falling within classes G to K and not to the lands which are not registered as garden lands but on which gardens are raised and which may fall within classes A to F of Sec. 5(1). If this argument were to be accepted. Table VII applicable to dry lands falling within classes G to K can never be applied to lands registered as coconut gardens.
This is an important question which is likely to arise in a number of cases. I think, it is appropriate that this question should be determined authoritatively by a Bench.
The papers will be placed before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for posting the case before a Bench, for determination of the aforesaid question.
In pursuance of the above order the petition came before the Bench.
Kuppuswami, J.
JUDGMENT
This revision petition is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The respondent hereto filed a declaration u/s 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act of 1973. Among the lands declared by him is an extent of Ac. 11.50 cents of land which contains a cocount garden. It was contended by the declarant that in computing the holding the land should be regarded as dry land and the appropriate conversion Table viz. Table VII would apply. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the State that the land being one in which cocount garden was raised, section 5 Proviso (6) would apply and therefore the extent of standard holding cannot exceed 27 acres and the relevant table for conversion is Table IX. The first Tribunal applied Table IX and accordingly computed the holding in terms of that table. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the contention of the declarant that conversion Table VII relating to dry land has to be applied in the case of Ac. 11-50 cents referred to above.
In this revision petition the only question for consideration is what is the proper method of computation of the holding with regard to this Acs. 11-50 cents.
Under the Act the ceiling area in the case of family unit consisting of not more than 5 members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding. Section 5 of the Act lays down how the extent of standard holding should be computed with reference to different classes of lands. Wet lands are divided into 6 classes. A to F, and dry lands into 5 classes, G to K. The extent of standard holding varies from 6-07 Hectares or 15 acres in respect of Class A Wet land. 21.85 Hectares or 54 acres in regard to Class K dry land and in respect of double crop wet land the standard holding is much lower. Under the scheme of the Act the extent of land, which the declarant owns or possesses in respect of each category of land, has to be determined and the standard holding in respect of that land has to be decided with reference to this Table and the total of such standard holdings in regard to each category will be the standard holding of the declarant. There are several provisos to Section 5 (1) of the Act. We are concerned in this case with proviso (vi) which is in the following terms:
In the case of any land or padugai land of any land on which a coconut garden, a guava garden or a grape garden is raised the extent of standard holding shall in no case exceed 10.93 hectares (27 acres).
The case of the Government is that as the land of the extent of Ac. 11.50 cents is a land on which coconut garden is raised, proviso (vi) to Section 5 (1) applies and standard holding has therefore to be taken as 27 acres. Accordingly in respect of this land the holding of the declarant would be Ac. 11.50 cents divided by 27. On the other hand, the contention of the declarant is that though a coconut garden is raised, it is registered as "dry garden land" in the accounts. The expression "dry land" is defined u/s 3 (e) as meaning "land registered as dry, manavari, asmantari, baghat or garden land etc". It is therefore contended that the land which is registered as dry garden land in the accounts must be treated as ceiling within the definition of "dry land", u/s 3 (e) of the Act. If so it has to be classified under any one or more of the classes G to K in the Table and accordingly the standard holding must be ascertained with reference to that Table, If so as the ceiling varies from 35 to 54 acres, the standard holding in respect of this land will be much less.
It is not possible for us to give effect to the contention of the respondent. It is true that this land is registered as dry garden land and should normally be taken as dry land within the meaning of section 3 (e). But while section 5 (1) says that the extent of land which constitutes a standard holding for the class of lands specified in Column I of the Table following Section 5 shall be specified as in Column II, there are several provisos to this section, one of them being proviso (vi). This proviso expressly provides inter alia that in the case of a land on which a coconut garden is raised the extent of standard holding shall in any case exceed 27 acres. In view of this proviso the main part of the section will not apply and accordingly the Table relating to dry lands also will not apply and the extent of Standard holding shall be taken as 27 acres.
It was argued by Sri Subbarayan, the learned counsel for the respondent that the proviso is not applicable as it cannot be said that this is a land on which coconut garden is raised. He submitted that the coconut garden has already been raised and the land had been registered as dry garden, land his contentions that the proviso will apply only to a case where coconut garden is raised after the coming into force of the Act on any land which is not already registered as dry or garden. We find no basis for such a contention. The proviso is general in nature and refers to any land on which the coconut garden is raised. No limitation is imposed upon the land on which the coconut garden is raised and the proviso does not say that it should be land which is not already registered as dry or garden. Having regard to the wide language used in proviso, we are of view that where a coconut garden is raised in dry land or garden land the proviso would apply. The obvious intention of the framers of the proviso is not to treat the lands on which a coconut garden, a guava or a grape garden is raised of lanka or padugai land in the same category as ordinary dry land. Perhaps it was felt that though raised on dry land such coconut gardens are much more valuable and therefore a lesser ceiling should be fixed in respect of those lands than in the case of ordinary dry or garden lands. Any how it is not for us to probe into the rationality of such differentiation when there is no ambiguity in regard to the language.
The first Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal in our view went off the track by not considering this question but considering a question whether Table VII or Table IX applies. In our view these tables are only Conversion Tables which help the authorities in finding out the corresponding standard holding where the extent is known in terms of acres or hectares. For instance, to give an illustration, if the land is dry land of Class K, the standard holding is 57 acres. If a person has 10 acres of this class of land, Table VII says that in respect of Class K it would amount to 18.52 of a standard holding for 10 acres. Similarly, Table IX gives the conversion factors when the standard holding is 27 acres. No doubt there is a note to this Table IX which says that this table would apply only if the class of land has a standard holding exceeding 27 acres. This note, in our view, is totally unintelligible. As we have stated earlier this table merely says that if the standard holding is 27 acres the corresponding standard holding in respect of different extents is as noted in the table. These tables in our view are totally irrelevant in considering the question whether the standard holding should be taken as 27 acres or whether it should be taken according to the table appended to dry lands. That in our view will depend upon only the construction of the proviso to section 5. Sri Subbarayan, the learned counsel for the respondent, very frankly conceded that both the Tribunals did not consider the real question in controversy with reference to Section 5 proviso (iv) of the Act but were led away by irrelevant consideration of Table IX. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the land of the extent of Ac. 11-50 cents in which coconut garden is raised comes u/s 5 proviso (vi) and the standard holding should be taken as 27 acres and the corresponding standard holding for Ac. 11-50 cents should be worked out. Accordingly the Revision Petition is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/-.