ivil Appeal No 3388 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 441989 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRP No 1450 of 1981
AK Sen C Sitaramiah PA Chaudhary K Jagannatha Rao PR Ramachandra Murthy Mrs Anjani K Ram Kumar YP Rao PSR Murhty B Kanta Rao NDB Raju RN Keshwani RF Nariman Raj Kumar Gupta PC Kapur Rajen dra Chaudhary A Subba Rao KR Nagaraja PK Rao ATM Sampath PN Ramalingam R Venkatramani G Narasimhulu GN Rao and SK Sucharita for the Appellants
K Parasaran TVSN Chari Mrs B Sunita Rao Ms Manjula Gupta and V Sekhar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This is a group of matters comprising Civil Appeal No 3388 of 1984 in this Court and other cases which have been placed before us for hearing along with this appeal
We propose to deal first with Civil Appeal No 3388 of 1984
This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No 1450 of 1981
The question involved in the appeal before the High Court from which this appeal arises was whether land which has been agreed to be sold by the owner under an agreement of sale and possession of which was delivered in part performance of the agreement for sale but pursuant to which no conveyance had been executed till the relevant date could be included both in the holding of the owner vendor as 223 well as the purchaser or whether it was liable to be includ ed only in the holding of the purchaser for the purposes of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 hereinafter referred to as the said Act 
There are a number of connected matters where the same question is involved and which have been placed for hearing before us
In some of these cases a part of the considera tion has been paid and in a few others the entire consider ation has been paid
It has also been alleged that the possession of the land was transferred to the purchaser pursuant to the agreements of sale referred to
In some of these cases lands belonging to the owners have been given on lease to tenants who are in possession thereof as les sees
In order to appreciate the controversy arising before us it is necessary to bear in mind the relevant provisions of the said Act
Before the said Act was enacted there was in force in Andhra Pradesh an Act entitled Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1961 which provided for the imposition of a ceiling on holdings of agricultural land
After that Act had been in force for some time the Central Committee on Land Reforms made certain recommenda tions regarding the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings and in line with this proposed policy the said Act was enacted in 1973 to bring about comprehensive legislation for the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings in the State of Andhra Pradesh and with a view to replace the aforesaid Act of 1961 as well as Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands Prohibition of Alienation Act 1972
The object of the legislation was to take over the lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed and to distribute the same among landless and other deserving persons to subserve the common good
The said Act was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitu tion at Item 67 by the Constitution 34th Amendment Act and was protected under Article 31 A
The object of the said Act was agrarian reform
Under sub section c of section 3 of the said Act ceiling area  is defined as under 3c ceiling area  means the extent of land specified in section 4 or section 4 A to be ceiling area
 It may be mentioned here that the agricultural land was classified into wet land dry land and so on and appropriate areas were fixed as ceiling in respect of such lands taking into account the nature and yield capacity of the lands in question
Section 3i runs as follows 224 3i holding  means the entire land held by a person i as an owner ii as a limited owner iii as an usufructuary mortgagee iv as a tenant v who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by condi tional sale or through part performance of a contract for the sale of land or otherwise or in one or more of such capacities and the expression to hold land  shall be construed accordingly Explanation Where the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in any other capacity such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons
 Section 3m provides that notified date means the date notified under sub section 3 of section 1 on which the said Act came into force
It may be mentioned that the notified date in respect of the said Act is 111975
Very briefly stated under section 4 the ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of not more than five members was prescribed as one standard holding
Where the family consisted of more than five members there was broadly speaking a proportionate increase in the ceiling area
Under section 5 the standard holding is fixed taking into account the classification of the land according to the nature of the land
Sub section 1 of section 7 runs as follows 71
Special provision in respect of certain transfers etc
already made Where on or after the 24th January 1971 but before the notified date any person has transferred whether by way of sale gift usufructuary mortgage exchange settlement surrender or in any other manner whatsoever any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him then the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings shall be on 225 such person and where he has not so proved such transfer or creation of trust shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person
 Very briefly stated sub section 2 of section 7 pro vides inter alia that any alienation made
by way of sale lease for a period exceeding six years gift exchange usufructuary mortgage or otherwise as set out in the said sub section on or after 2nd May 1972 and before the noti fied date in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultur al Land Prohibition of Alienation Act 1972 shall be null and void
The other sub sections also provide that in the various other circumstances set out therein alienations made will be disregarded for purposes of fixation of ceiling
Section 8 provides in brief that every person whose holding on the notified date together with any land trans ferred by him on or after 24th January 1971 exceeds the specified limits shall within 30 days from the notified date namely 11
1975 or such extended period as the Gov ernment may notify in that behalf furnish a declaration in respect of his holding to the competent Tribunal
Section 9 deals with determination of the ceiling area by the Tribunal constituted under Section 6
Section 10 deals with the surrender of lands in certain cases
Sub section 5 of the said section provides that it shall be open to the Tribunal to refuse to accept the surrender of any land as contemplated under sub section 1 or deemed surrender of land as contemplated under sub section 4 of the said section in the circumstances set out in sub section 5
Section 11 deals with the vesting of surrendered lands
Section 12 deals with revision and vesting of lands surrendered
The opening part of that section provides that where any land is surrendered or deemed to have been surren dered under the said Act by any usufructuary mortgagee or a tenant the possession of such land shall subject to such rules as may be prescribed revert to the owner
Sub sec tion 4 of section 12 provides that where any land is surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under the said Act by any person in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through a part performance of con tract for sale or otherwise the possession of such land shall subject to such rules as may be prescribed revert to the owner
Sub section 5 A make an analogous provision in connection with lands surrendered by limited owners and provides that such surrendered lands shall revert to the person having a vested interest in the remainder
226 Section 13 makes special provision for the exclusion from the holding of the owner of land belonging to him held by a protected tenant where such land or part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenant under Section 38A of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1950
Before going into the merits of the contentions urged and considering the proper interpretation to be given to the relevant sections of the said Act we cannot lose sight of the fact that the said Act is a piece of agrarian legisla tion enacted with a view to achieve a more equitable distri bution of lands for common good and with a view to subserve the objectives enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution being one of the Directive Principles embodied in the Con stitution
Provisions of such a legislation have to be interpreted liberally and with a view to furthering the object of the legislation and not with a view to defeat the same in a strict and constricted manner in which a taxing law for instance might be interpreted
The main submission of learned counsel for the appel lants is that the expression holding  has been defined in sub section i of Section 3 of the said Act the definition section set out earlier as meaning the entire land held by a person emphasis supplied and that the use of the said word held in the definition indicates that the person who is supposed to hold the land must necessarily be the person in possession of the said land and hence where in part performance of an agreement for sale or under a lease the purchaser or lessee has been put in possession of any land the owner of the said land cannot any longer be regarded as holding the said land and it cannot be said that the said land is held by him
It was submitted by learned counsel that in view of this context although the Explanation to sub section i of section 3 is very widely worded its meaning cannot be so extended as to cover a case where the owner of the land is no longer in possession of the land and has parted with the possession thereof under an agreement creating a right legal or equitable in the land concerned
We find it difficult to accept this contention
Clauses i to v of subsection i of section 3 set out the various capacities in which a person can be said to hold land for the purposes of the said Act and among these capacities are as a usufructuary mortgagee as a tenant and as one who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part performance of a contract of sale
The very language of sub section i of section 3 indicates that land can be held as contemplated in the said sub section by persons in a number of capacities
The Explanation in plain language states that the same land can be held by 227 one person in one capacity and by another person in a dif ferent capacity and provides that such land shall be includ ed in the holdings of both such persons
The Explanation thus clearly contemplates that the same land can be held as contemplated under sub section i by one person as the owner and by another person as his lessee or as a person to whom the owner has delivered possession of the land in part performance of an agreement to sell
On a plain reading of the language used in the Explanation we find it that it is not possible to accept the submission that only where the land is in possession of a person can that land be regarded as held by him
Apart from what we have pointed out earlier we find that the question which arises before us in this appeal is al ready covered by the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs Mohd Ashrafuddin  The facts of the case were that out of the total holding of his land the respondent transferred some land to another person under two unregistered sale deeds pursuant to an agreement for sale and giftedaway some land to his son
In the return submitted by him under the said Act the respondent did not include in his holding the area transferred under the unreg istered sale deeds or the land gifted by him which was in the possession of the purchaser and donee respectively
The Land Reforms Tribunal ignoring the two transfers computed his holding at 17692 standard holding and called upon him to surrender land equivalent to 07692 standard holding
In revision the High Court held that the land transferred under the two sale deeds could not be included in the hold ing of the respondent for ascertaining the ceiling area
In coming to this conclusion the High Court gave the benefit of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the person in possession of the plot pursuant to the contract for sale and treated the land as a part of his holding
On appeal to this court a Division Bench comprising three learned Judges of this Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the High Court was in error in holding that the land in the possession of the transferee cannot be taken to be a part of the holding of the respondent
It was held by this Court that the expression held connotes both owner ship as well as possession
In the context of the definition it is not possible to interpret the term holding only in the sense of possession
The Explanation to the definition of the term holding clearly contemplates that the same land can be the holding of two different persons holding the land in different capacities See page 486
The Court went on to state that It is by now well settled that a person in possession pursuant to a contract for sale does not get title to the land 228 unless there is a valid document of title in his favour
In the instant case it has already been pointed out that the transferee came into possession in pursuance of an agreement for sale but no valid deed of title was executed in his favour
Therefore the ownership remained with the respond ent transferor
But even in the absence of a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and the transferee is entitled to remain in possession The Court went on to observe that There may conceivably be cases where the same land is included in holding of two persons in different capacities and serious prejudice might be caused to one or both of them if they were asked to surrender the excess area
To safe guard the interest of the owners in such a case the legisla ture has made a provision in section 124 and 5 of the Act
Even so there might be cases where some prejudice might be caused to some tenure holders
 The Court further observed that But if the definition of the term holding  is couched in clear and unambiguous language the court has to accept it as it stands
So construed the same land can be a part of the holding of various persons holding it in different capaci ties
When the terms of the definition are clear and unam biguous there is no question of taking extraneous aid for construing it
 The correctness of this decision has been upheld by this court in Begulla Bapi Raju etc
vs State of Andhra Pradesh etc
etc 1 at p 7 17
In that case one of the contentions urged on behalf of the petition ers was that land transferred by the petitioners under various transfer deeds to the outsiders and who came in possession also could not be included in the holding of the petitioners
This argument was negatived by a Bench compris ing three learned Judges of this Court which followed the decision of this Court in Mohd Ashrafuddin s case supra and did not accept the plea that the decision in that case required reconsideration
The question raised for our determination in this appeal is 229 directly covered against the appellant by the decisions of this Court in two cases just referred to by us
In these circumstances even assuming that there is another equally plausible view regarding the construction and the legal effect of section 3i of the said Act read with Explana tion that would not necessarily justify our reconsidering the question which has already been decided by this Court although the decision was rendered by a Bench comprising only three learned Judges of this Court
In our opinion unless we find that the decisions in the aforesaid cases are erroneous it would not be proper on our part to reconsider the same
Apart from this as we have pointed out earlier in our view considering the clear language of section 3i of the said Act read with Explanation to that section the view taken in Mohd Ashrafuddin s case supra is with respect the correct view and we are inclined to take the same view on the construction and legal effect of that provision
Learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reli ance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Authorised Officer LR Vijayawa da vs Kalyanam China Venkata Narasayya 1978 1 AP Law Journal 98
In that case a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court took the view that if the owner of the land has put the transferee in possession of the land in part performance of a contract for sale such land can be included only in the holding of the transferee and cannot simultaneously be computed in the holding of the transferor as well for that land is not held by him as an owner
It could be included in the holding of the transferor only as and when the transferee surrenders that land and that land reverts to the transferor as provided under section 12 of the said Act
The Division Bench also took the view that the expression holding and the expression held by a person occurring in section 3i of the said Act must be construed as taking in the idea of actual possession and not merely any right title or interest in the land devoid of actual possession
In our view this decision cannot be regarded as laying down good law and must be treated as overruled by the decisions of this Court in Mohd Ashrafud din s case supra and Begulla Bapi Raju s case supra
We cannot lose sight of the fact that the said Act is a piece of agrarian reform legislation passed with a view to effec tively fix a ceiling on agricultural holdings and to achieve equitable distribution of surplus land among the landless and the other deserving persons
The plain language of section 3i read with Explanation supports the view taken by this Court in Mohd Ashrafuddin s case supra
1t is true that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgment has given certain examples 230 where the interpretation which has been given in Mohd Ashrafuddin s case supra might lead to some hardship
That however in our opinion cannot justify restricting the effect of the plain language of the relevant provisions in the manner done by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Explanation to section 3i was incorporated in the said Act because the legislature took the view that but for such a drastic provision it would not be possible to effectively implement the provisions of the said Act regarding the acquisition of surplus land and distribution of the surplus land to the landless and the other deserving persons
It is a notorious fact that there were a large number of cases where agreements for sale or documents for lease in respect of excess lands were executed by owners of lands in excess Of the ceiling area with a view to defeat the provisions of the said Act
In fact a perusal of the facts in the cases before us generally lends support to the existence of such a situation
In these circum stances if the legislature has used language in section 3i and the Explanation thereto which on a plain reading shows that in case of land covered under an agreement for sale or an agreement of lease even though the purchaser or the lessee might be in possession of the land it would be included in the holdings of both of the purchaser as well as the owner or the lessee and the owner we see no reason to cut down the plain meaning of the language employed in that provision merely because that it might possibly result in hardship in few cases
Moreover we find that to some ex tent the legislature has tried to mitigate this hardship by providing that if the purchaser under the agreement of sale or the lessee has in his holding land in excess of the ceiling area such excess would revert to the owner of the land
If the interpretation sought to be put by learned counsel for the appellants which finds support from the aforementioned decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court were correct we fail to see why such a provision as afore stated for reversion of excess land to the owner should have been made
It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that if the construction placed on the said provisions by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgment was accepted it is not as if the object of the said legislation would be defeated because where an agreement for sale or agreement of lease cannot be shown to be bona fide the land would be included in the holding of the owner
This circumstance
however
is of a little avail
Where such agreements for sale or of lease are executed in writing and possession is handed over to the purchaser or the lessee it would be very difficult to show that the transaction was not bona fide although the agreement might well have been executed really with a 231 view to defeat the provisions of the said Act
We cannot lose sight of the fact that section 3i and the Explanation only deals with cases where the transfer of ownership is not complete and the owner does not part completely with his legal interest in the land so that on the termination of the agreement for sale or agreement of lease without any document being registered the land would fully revert to the owner
Moreover in many cases it was found that the owner of the land himself continued to cultivate the land claiming that he was doing so on behalf of his son who was the lessee or the purchaser under an agreement
In these circumstances we fail to see any reason to cut down the plain meaning of the provisions of section 3i and the Explanation thereto
It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the definition of the word holding  contained in sub section i of section 3 was an exhaustive definition and that definition contained in the main section could not be interpreted in the light of the Explanation thereto
It was submitted by him that the meaning of the term holding  and held  in sub section i of section 3 could not be governed by the Explanation
In support of the contention reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co of India Ltd  Anr
vs The Commercial Tax Officer and Others at pp
914 917
In our opinion this decision is hardly of any assistance in the matter before us
It is well settled that the provisions in an Act have to be read harmoniously and in the light of the context in which they occur
In our opin ion there can be no quarrel with the reliance being placed on the Explanation in order to understand the meaning of the term holding and held used in sub section i of section 3 of the said Act
Although some other decisions have been referred to us we do not think any useful purpose would be served by discussing the same in view of what we have ob served earlier nor would it serve any purpose to refer to the various examples of ownership set out in the American Jurisprudence to which our attention was drawn
In the result in our opinion there is no merit in the appeal and the same must fail and is dismissed
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we however direct that there will be no order as to costs of the appeal
The other connected Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions have all been directed to be tagged with the aforesaid Civil Appeal disposed of by us as they involve the same points as raised in the said 232 Civil Appeal
Following our decision the said Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed but with no order as to costs
In view of the dismissal of all the Appeals and Special Leave Petitions the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions therein do not survive and all are dismissed with no order as to costs
Interim orders if any are vacated
Appeals and PS S Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The subject matter of the Writ Petition is the gradation list dated 911986 of the Inspectors of Excise by which the Government of Bihar has finally fixed the inter se seniority of the Petitioners who were promoted vis a vis the appel lants in the present appeal who were promoted to posts of Inspectors of Excise in 5 quota reserved for promotion from the posts of Upper Division Assistants of Excise Department
In the gradation list the appellants who joined as Inspectors of Excise on 7576 were shown as senior to the Excise Inspector who were promoted from Sub Inspectors on 24474 in the vacancies of direct recruits
The gradation list was challenged in the High Court by the Respondents on two grounds ie 1 the State Govern ment has no jurisdiction to determine the seniority or gradation list of the Excise Inspectors the competent authority is the Excise Commissioner 2 The Respondents in the present appeal have been continuously officiated for years together in the vacancies of direct recruits and thus could not be pushed down for determining the seniority and shown as juniors to the contesting appellants
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition in part
It was held that 5 quota to be filled up by promotion from Upper Division Assistants of Excise Department was notified only on 31st March 1975 whereas the appellants have been promot ed in the 5 quota of vacancies of the year 1974 75
Hence they have not been promoted in the 5 quota
The Respondents in the present appeal were promoted as Excise Inspectors on 24474 in the quota of direct recruits and thus they could not be shown as juniors to those who were promoted and joined on 7576 from 5 quota of the 1974 75 year vacan cies
The High Court quashed the 194 gradation list and directed the State Government to draw up a fresh list in the light of the observations made
Further it held that State Government is the competent authority to determine inter se seniority because where in any provisions of Bihar Excise Act 1915 government has vested the Excise Commissioner with the power of determining the seniority of the Excise Inspectors
Hence the gradation list prepared by the State Government is legal and valid
The appellants filed Special Leave petition in this Court against the High Court Judgment and Order
Allowing the Special Leave Petition this Court HELD The appellants claimed to be promoted to the posts of Inspectors in the 5 quota set apart for promotion from the Upper Division Assistants against the vacancies of the year 1974 75
Since under Bihar Excise Act 1915 vide notifi cation No 417 of 1511919 clause iv the Excise Commis sioner was given only the powers to appoint Excise Inspec tors by promotions but not to determine inter se seniority etc
Hence vide Excise Recruitment Rules 1936 Rule No I vide notification No 411 dated 31375 after clause 2 clause 3 was added making provision for promotion from selected confirmed Upper Division Assistants and Head Clerks of the District Excise Office and also added at the end of the Rule 1 that at least 5 of the total vacancies shall be filled up by promotion from among the above notified staff
In this rule the provision for relaxation of direct recruit ment quota was made but there was no relaxation of the quota of promotees
197G 198C 199E The State Government made this decision and order on 20374 regarding reservation of 5 of the total vacancies to be filled by promotion for the year 1974 75 but the notification to that effect was published on 31375
The promotion could not have been given unless the decision was confirmed by notification
It was only after the notifica tion of 31375 that the Upper Division Assistants were promoted as Excise Inspectors for the first time out of the 5 quota created in the vacancies of 1974 75 in the year 1976
205G H 206B The Government has rightly promoted the appellants within their quota in the vacancies occurred in 1974 by its orders
211D When there is no relaxation in the quota vacancies as between the direct recruitment and promotees the determina tion of inter se 195 seniority shall be determined in the order of rotation of vacancies reserved for both categories the direct recruits made within their quota would always deemed to be senior to those promotees recruited inexcess of their quota
210H 21 1A VB Badami vs State of Mysore AIR 1980 SC 1561 A Janardhana vs Union of India  Ors  and O Singla  Anr
vs Union of India  Ors
   relied on
It is only when the quota rule was not adhered to or followed for a long time and the promotees are allowed to officiate in the quota of direct recruits for a period of 15 to 20 years in such circumstances Government is empowered to relax the quota rule and the promotees will have seniori ty from the date of the continuous officiations in the cadre grade or service
210F Narendra Chadha vs Union of India  and GS Lamba  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
  Quotas are fixed under the relevant rules of recruit ments and can be altered only by fresh determination of quotas under the relevant rules of recruitments
201 C In the instant case there was no rule for relaxation of the quota
The respondent Nos 3  4 who were promoted from selected Excise Sub Inspectors to the Inspectors of Excise in 1974 officiated till 75
1976 when the appellants joined as Inspectors of Excise from their 5 quota
It cannot be said in such circumstances that the quota was not filled up for a long period nor can it be said that the respondents 3  4 who were promoted in excess of their quota have worked as inspectors of Excise for long time and as such the respondents 3  4 cannot claim to be seniors to the appellants
210G H 211A The appellants being promoted as Inspectors of Excise from the 5 quota of vacancies of the year 1974 75 were rightly shown as seniors
in the gradation list prepared by the Government on 911986 which is legal and valid
21 1D