Thumati Venkaiah and Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
of ceiling on land situate within such area. No sooner such area is notified to be an urban agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to land situate within such area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would continue to be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land. It may be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with reference to this date the surplus holding of land in excess of the ceiling area was required to be determined and if there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State Government It must 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 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, 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 that 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 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. Undoubtedly, when an area is notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(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 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 therefore 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 competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It is only in respect of land situate within the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (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 the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 12. The next contention urged on behalf of the landholders was that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Andhra 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 the validity of partitions affected prior to that date. If therefore a 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 section 7, sub-section (2) clearly recognised such partition as valid. This argument is clearly fallacious in that it fail s 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 property w hich comes to the share of a divided minor son would in law 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(f) the divided minor son would clearly be include d 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 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 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 the family unit. We do not therefore see how a divided minor son can be excluded from the family unit. That would be flying in the face of sections 3(f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. 13. 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 with by learned brother Tulzapurkar, J. in the judgment delivered by him today in the Haryana Land Ceiling matters and we need not repeat what he had already stated there while repelling this contention. Moreover, this contention isl 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. 14.
0[ds]The effect of passing of resolutions be the Houses of Legislature of two or more States under this constitutional provision is that Parliament which has otherwise power to legislate with respect to a matter, except as provided in Articles 249 and 250, becomes entitled to legislate with respect to such matter and the State Legislatures 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 it. It is as if such matter is lifted out of List II and placed in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This would seem to be quite clear on a plain natural construction of the language of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 25 2 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 presente an identical view has been taken. It was in pursuance of clause (l) of this Article that a Resolution was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council on 7th April 1972 to the effect that the imposition of a ceiling on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters connected therewith or ancillary and incidental thereto should be regulated in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Parliament by law and an identical resolution in the same terms 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 Andhra Pradesh Act. 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 im movable property and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and all connected, ancillary or incidental matters, and the Andhra Pradesh Legislature stood denuded of its power to legislate on that subjectNow the Andhra Pradesh Act, as its long title shows, was enacted to consolidate and damned the law relating to the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings and taking over of surplus land and matter 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 unitIt 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 standard 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 consists of more than five members, the ceiling area would stand increased byh of one standard holding for every additional member of the family unit, subject however to the maximum limit of 2 standard holdings. When the ceiling area is applied to the holding of a family unit, 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 in a family unit consisting of father, mother and three minor sons or daughters, the lands held by all these persons would have to be club bed together and then the ceiling area applied to the aggregate holding. There is no distinction made in the definition of family unit between a divided minor son and an undivided minor son. Both stand on the same footing and a divided minor son is as much a member 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 ceiling area. Section 7 invalidates certain transfers of land and provides 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 hold an enquiry. and pass an order determining the land held in excess of the ceiling area. Such land has to be surrendered by the person holding the land and on such surrender, the Revenue Divisional officer is empowered under section 11 to take possession of the land which thereupon vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 14 provides inter alia that the land vested in the State Government shal l be allotted for use ass for agricultural labourers. village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses ors or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dependent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture/or for purposes ancillary thereto in such manner as may be prescribed by the Rules, subject to a proviso that as far as practicable not less thanf of the total extent of land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or transferre d to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Section 15 enacts a provision for payment of compensation for land 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 the present appealsWe may now turn to examine the relevant provisions of the Central Act. This Act was enacted by Parliament pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by the resolutions passed by the Houses of legislature of several States including the State of Andhra Pradesh under clause (1) of Article 252. It received the assent of the President on 17th February 1 976 and as its long title and recital shows it was enacted to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land is urban agglomerations for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for ma tters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations toe the common good. We shall refer to a few material provisions of this ActNow, as we have already pointed out above, the Andhra Pradesh 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 transferred 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 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 agglomeration defined in section 2(n) of the Central Act was an expensive concept and any area with an existing or future population of more than one lakh could be notified to be an urban agglomeration, the whole of the Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra vires and void as being outside the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. This argument plausible though it may seem, in our opinion, is unsustainable. It is no doubt true that if the Andhra Pradesh Act seeks to impose ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration, it would be outside the 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) (ii) and there can be no doubt that so far as these urban agglomerations are concerned, it was not within the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to provide for imposition of ceiling on land situate within these urban agglomerations. It is, however, difficult to see how the Andhra Pradesh Act could be said to be outside the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in so far as land situate in the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. We accept that any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh with a population of more than one lakh could be notified as an urban agglomeration 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 ceiling on land situate within such area. No sooner such area is notified to be an urban agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to land situate within such area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would continue to be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land. It may be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with reference to this date the surplus holding of land in excess of the ceiling area was required to be determined and if there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State Government It must 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 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, 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 that 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 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. Undoubtedly, when an area is notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(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 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 therefore 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 competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It is only in respect of land situate within the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (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 the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradeshn (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 the validity of partitions affected prior to that date. If therefore a 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 section 7,n (2) clearly recognised such partition as valid. This argument is clearly fallacious in that it fail s 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 property w hich comes to the share of a divided minor son would in law 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(f) the divided minor son would clearly be include d in the family unit and by reason of section 4 his land whetherd 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 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 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 the family unit. We do not therefore see how a divided minor son can be excluded from the family unit. That would be flying in the face of sections 3(f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh ActThen 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 thefamily unit while excluding a major son from it. This contention has already been dealt with by learned brother Tulzapurkar, J. in the judgment delivered by him today in the Haryana Land Ceiling matters and we need not repeat what he had already stated there while repelling this contention. Moreover, this contention isl 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.
### Instruction:
Predict the outcome of the case proceeding (1 for acceptance, 0 for rejection) and subsequently provide an explanation based on significant sentences in the proceeding.

### Input:
of ceiling on land situate within such area. No sooner such area is notified to be an urban agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to land situate within such area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would continue to be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land. It may be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with reference to this date the surplus holding of land in excess of the ceiling area was required to be determined and if there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State Government It must 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 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, 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 that 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 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. Undoubtedly, when an area is notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(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 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 therefore 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 competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It is only in respect of land situate within the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (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 the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 12. The next contention urged on behalf of the landholders was that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Andhra 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 the validity of partitions affected prior to that date. If therefore a 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 section 7, sub-section (2) clearly recognised such partition as valid. This argument is clearly fallacious in that it fail s 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 property w hich comes to the share of a divided minor son would in law 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(f) the divided minor son would clearly be include d 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 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 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 the family unit. We do not therefore see how a divided minor son can be excluded from the family unit. That would be flying in the face of sections 3(f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. 13. 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 with by learned brother Tulzapurkar, J. in the judgment delivered by him today in the Haryana Land Ceiling matters and we need not repeat what he had already stated there while repelling this contention. Moreover, this contention isl 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. 14.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh with a population of more than one lakh could be notified as an urban agglomeration 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 ceiling on land situate within such area. No sooner such area is notified to be an urban agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to land situate within such area, but until that happens the Andhra Pradesh Act would continue to be applicable to determine the ceiling on holding of land. It may be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on 1st January 1975 and it was with reference to this date the surplus holding of land in excess of the ceiling area was required to be determined and if there was any surplus it was to be surrendered to the State Government It must 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 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, 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 that 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 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. Undoubtedly, when an area is notified as an urban agglomeration under section 2(n)(A)(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 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 therefore 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 competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. It is only in respect of land situate within the urban agglomerations referred to in section 2(n) (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 the other areas of the State of Andhra Pradeshn (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 the validity of partitions affected prior to that date. If therefore a 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 section 7,n (2) clearly recognised such partition as valid. This argument is clearly fallacious in that it fail s 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 property w hich comes to the share of a divided minor son would in law 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(f) the divided minor son would clearly be include d in the family unit and by reason of section 4 his land whetherd 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 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 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 the family unit. We do not therefore see how a divided minor son can be excluded from the family unit. That would be flying in the face of sections 3(f) and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh ActThen 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 thefamily unit while excluding a major son from it. This contention has already been dealt with by learned brother Tulzapurkar, J. in the judgment delivered by him today in the Haryana Land Ceiling matters and we need not repeat what he had already stated there while repelling this contention. Moreover, this contention isl 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.
