Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Transport Corporation Of India Ltd. vs The Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms on 25 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)ALT243
ORDER Y. Bhaskara Rao, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of a declaration filed by the company, known as the Transport Corporation of India Limited. The company owns the land in two villages - Sholipur village, Shadnagar taluq, Mahabubnagar district and Udumalpuram village of Nandyal taluq of Kurnool District. The total extent of the land held by the company is 1-5912 S.H. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Kurnool has decided that declaration filed by the company under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and treated the company as an individual and declared that the company has got excess land of 0-5912 S.H. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool and the appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. Against that the present revision is filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the land is owned by the company as per the provisions of the above Act, the land is deemed to be held by every shareholder of the company. It is further submitted that there are 500 shareholders in the petitioner-Company, therefore, the entire land has to be divided between them and the dcelaration of each individual has to be considered. If there is any excess land to any one of the shareholders after noting his share of the land in the petitioner-company. Then only he is liable of surrender; otherwise, the question of surrender of the land does not arise. Both the Tribunals erred treating the land held by the company as a single individual and erred in holding that there is excess land. Therefore, this revision.
3. The question for consideration is whether the land held by the company has to be treated as held by an individual company or by the shareholder of the company.
4. Under Section 8 of the above Act, a declaration is filed by the company, under Section 3(o) of the Act, a 'Person' is defined and it includes an individual, a family unit, a trustee, a company, a firm, a society or an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not. As per the above definition, a company has to file a declaration with regard to any agricultural land held by it under Section 8 of the Act. But Section 5 of the Act deals with what constitutes a holding and how it is to be computed. The relevant provision, for our present purpose is Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act which is as follows:-
"Where an individual or a member of the family unit is a member of a co-operative society, company or firm the share of such individual or member of a family unit in the land held by such co-operative society, company or firm shall be also included in the holding of the individual or member of the family unit, as the case may be, and for the purpose of the share of the land so held shall be deemed to be the extent of the land which would have been allotted to him on a winding up of the cooperative society or company or dissolution of the firm."
5. From the above provisions, it is clear that the land held by a company will be treated as the land of the individual share-holders and their respective shares in the land held by the company will be included in their holdings. From the provision it looks as though that a company though included in the definition of the term 'person', it is not intended for the purpose of Section 8 of the Act as a 'person' who needs to file a declaration as provided therein. If, as provided under Section 8 of the Act, a company has to file a declaration with regard to the land held by it, and as provided under Section 5(5) of she Act if the individual shareholders are obliged to show in their holdings their shares or' the land held by the company, the same land would be shown both by the company and by the individual shareholders. This would not have been the intention of the legislature because the whole scheme of the Act is that an individual or a company can have a standard holding in whatever manner they are entitled to it. If the same Sand is to be treated as the land of the company as a different entity or as different 'person' and it has to be treated again as the land of the individual shareholders of the company, as envisaged under Section 5(5} of the Act, it may result in the individual shareholder not retaining even a standard holding, therefore, the land held by the company has to be treated as the land held by the individual shareholders and the same ha? to be divided amongst the shareholders. This view is taken in a reported decision of this court rendered in Chamanlal R. Patel v. State of A.P. by District Collector Chittor, 1976 (2) APLJ 271. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed and it has to be held that there is no excess land to be surrendered by the petitioner company as there are about 500 shareholders. The order of the Court below is set aside and the revision petition is allowed, accordingly. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.