Case: District Collector, Vizianagaram Vs. Authorised Controller of Sugar Units of Bobbili

1. The only point for decision in these appeals by special leave is the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment that a company incorporated under the Companies Act is not obliged to file a declaration as required by Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act"). This view has been taken by the High Court in a revision filed against an order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal 2. The view of the High Court is based on GOMs No. 1637 of 14-12-1977 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh from which such an inference was drawn. The GOMs has later been rescinded by GOMs No. 1384 dated 29-8-1981. That apart, we have no doubt that the view taken by the High Court is based on a misconstruction of the relevant provisions of the Act 3. The definition of "person" in clause (o) of Section 3 is as under "3. (o) person includes an individual, a family unit; a trustee, a company, a firm, a society or an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not;" This definition clearly includes a company within the ambit of "person" for the purpose of the Act. Section 8 requires every person whose holding on the notified date exceeds the specified limit to submit a declaration as prescribed therein. The meaning of the word "person" in Section 8 has to be understood as defined in Section 3(o) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that a company is a "person" for the purpose of the Act and is required to comply with Section 8 of the Act. The contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained

Decision:
1[ds]This definition clearly includes a company within the ambit of "person" for the purpose of the Act. Section 8 requires every person whose holding on the notified date exceeds the specified limit to submit a declaration as prescribed therein. The meaning of the word "person" in Section 8 has to be understood as defined in Section 3(o) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that a company is a "person" for the purpose of the Act and is required to comply with Section 8 of the Act. The contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained