Case: Godavari Sugar Mills Limited Vs. S. Ramamurthy

. . . . . . Apparently the Act was not intended to deprive the persons in actual possession of the land and cultivating the same as tenants thereof except in cases where such tenants were found to be in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling fixed by the Act. The above can be ascertained by reading diverse provisions in the Act. Towards this purpose, the phrase to hold land was defined in sub-section (14) of Section 2 to mean that a tenant in actual possession of the land and also an owner in actual possession of the land must be held to continue to hold land. Towards protection of tenants in actual possession by sub-section (30)of Section 2 persons who were deemed tenants under the Tenancy Act were included in the definition of the phrase tenant. The policy of law disclosed by the above definitions was to provide that wherever a landlord was not in actual possession of lands of his ownership and others cultivated such lands lawfully (whilst the owner was not cultivating the same personally) they must be held to be deemed tenants and as such entitled to continue in possession of lands to the extent of ceiling area fixed under the Ceiling Act. When the definition of phrase to hold land is read in the light of the preamble of the Act and the above discussion the meaning of that phrase would be as follows. In every case in which the landlord or the owner continues in actual possession of land he must be held to hold the land. This is in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The surplus area in possession of a landlord would have to be ascertained on the footing of the area of land in his actual possession. In other words, in cases in which the landlord and the possession of the land of his ownership, he could not be heard to state in connection with such land that it did not form part of his holding. The surplus area will have to be ascertained on the basis that land in his actual possession was (and formed part of) his holding. The consequence of the above finding is that in cases in which actual and factual possession of land continues under any arrangement whatsoever with the landlord himself the persons cultivating such land will not be holders of such land. In connection with the question of finding out the ceiling area that an owner of lands in actual possession thereof should be allowed to continue to hold and delimiting the surplus area in his possession the owner cannot be entitled to argue that other persons cultivating his land were tenants and holders of land. Similarly, for ascertaining whether the tenant or the deemed tenant is holder of land under the Ceiling Act, the true test to be applied must be the fact of actual possession thereof, the tenant cannot be held to hold the land in question. We have no doubt that in this connection extreme importance must be given to the phrase actual possession as contained in sub-section (14) of Section 2. In our view on the facts as established, it is clear that the First Petitioner Company is owner of the land mentioned in the present proceedings. The First Petitioner Company has continued to remain in actual possession of the land in spite of its having made the agreement of partnership mentioned above and in spite of its having become a partner with petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 for the purpose of carrying on the partnership business of working and running the Farm (land) and of cultivating sugarcane and other crops thereon. In this connection it is important to notice that admittedly the First Petitioner Company itself is a party to the cultivation of the land. Since it is an incorporated company it is a party to the cultivation of the land through its agents. Even so, it must be held to have continued to cultivate the land even after the date from which the partnership carried on the business. Now, it is true that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 by themselves and/or through their agents and labourers are also taking part in the cultivation of the land. They cannot be held to be doing so unlawfully. To this extent they fall within the category of the deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. Even so, in connection with the enforcement of the Ceiling Act, the fact that the First Petitioner Company as owner, has not given up the possession of the land can never be forgotten and must be borne in mind. The First Petitioner Company has continued in actual possession of every and each part of the land and so far as we can judge it continues, to hold the land. Having regard to the above true position, we are not in a position to accept Mr. Narimans submission that each of the six petitioners are entitled to finding that they are separate land holders of the land in question and are entitled to a declaration that each of them is entitled to hold 108 acres of dry crop land from out of the land. In no event such a declaration could be made in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6, as the actual possession of the land has throughout continued with the First Petitioner Company. (9) IN arriving at the above finding, we have given due and proper attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of 65 Bom LR 328 = (AIR 1964 SC 1320 ). (10) IN this case the finding of the Collector and the Tribunal is that the partnership firm was entitled to hold 108 acres of dry-crop land. That finding has not been challenged and/or agitated on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 7 in this case. We are, therefore, not in a position to interfere with that declaration.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds](8) IN connection with the above submission made by Mr. Nariman and the true effect of the phrase to hold land contained in Section 2 (14) of the Ceiling Act it is necessary to remember the intent and the purpose of the Ceiling Act as clarified in the preamble which runs as follows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in the public interest to impose a maximum limit (or ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land. . . . . . . . . . . . to provide for the acquisition of land held in excess of the ceiling and for the distribution thereof to landless and other persons. . . . . . . . . . . . Apparently the Act was not intended to deprive the persons in actual possession of the land and cultivating the same as tenants thereof except in cases where such tenants were found to be in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling fixed by the Act. The above can be ascertained by reading diverse provisions in the Act. Towards this purpose, the phrase to hold land was defined inn (14) of Section 2 to mean that a tenant in actual possession of the land and also an owner in actual possession of the land must be held to continue to hold land. Towards protection of tenants in actual possession byn (30)of Section 2 persons who were deemed tenants under the Tenancy Act were included in the definition of the phrase tenant. The policy of law disclosed by the above definitions was to provide that wherever a landlord was not in actual possession of lands of his ownership and others cultivated such lands lawfully (whilst the owner was not cultivating the same personally) they must be held to be deemed tenants and as such entitled to continue in possession of lands to the extent of ceiling area fixed under the Ceiling Act. When the definition of phrase to hold land is read in the light of the preamble of the Act and the above discussion the meaning of that phrase would be as follows. In every case in which the landlord or the owner continues in actual possession of land he must be held to hold the land. This is in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The surplus area in possession of a landlord would have to be ascertained on the footing of the area of land in his actual possession. In other words, in cases in which the landlord and the possession of the land of his ownership, he could not be heard to state in connection with such land that it did not form part of his holding. The surplus area will have to be ascertained on the basis that land in his actual possession was (and formed part of) his holding. The consequence of the above finding is that in cases in which actual and factual possession of land continues under any arrangement whatsoever with the landlord himself the persons cultivating such land will not be holders of such land. In connection with the question of finding out the ceiling area that an owner of lands in actual possession thereof should be allowed to continue to hold and delimiting the surplus area in his possession the owner cannot be entitled to argue that other persons cultivating his land were tenants and holders of land. Similarly, for ascertaining whether the tenant or the deemed tenant is holder of land under the Ceiling Act, the true test to be applied must be the fact of actual possession thereof, the tenant cannot be held to hold the land in question. We have no doubt that in this connection extreme importance must be given to the phrase actual possession as contained inn (14) of Section 2. In our view on the facts as established, it is clear that the First Petitioner Company is owner of the land mentioned in the present proceedings. The First Petitioner Company has continued to remain in actual possession of the land in spite of its having made the agreement of partnership mentioned above and in spite of its having become a partner with petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 for the purpose of carrying on the partnership business of working and running the Farm (land) and of cultivating sugarcane and other crops thereon. In this connection it is important to notice that admittedly the First Petitioner Company itself is a party to the cultivation of the land. Since it is an incorporated company it is a party to the cultivation of the land through its agents. Even so, it must be held to have continued to cultivate the land even after the date from which the partnership carried on the business. Now, it is true that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 by themselves and/or through their agents and labourers are also taking part in the cultivation of the land. They cannot be held to be doing so unlawfully. To this extent they fall within the category of the deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. Even so, in connection with the enforcement of the Ceiling Act, the fact that the First Petitioner Company as owner, has not given up the possession of the land can never be forgotten and must be borne in mind. The First Petitioner Company has continued in actual possession of every and each part of the land and so far as we can judge it continues, to hold the land. Having regard to the above true position, we are not in a position to accept Mr. Narimans submission that each of the six petitioners are entitled to finding that they are separate land holders of the land in question and are entitled to a declaration that each of them is entitled to hold 108 acres of dry crop land from out of the land. In no event such a declaration could be made in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6, as the actual possession of the land has throughout continued with the First Petitioner Company(9) IN arriving at the above finding, we have given due and proper attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of 65 Bom LR 328 = (AIR 1964 SC 1320  )(10) IN this case the finding of the Collector and the Tribunal is that the partnership firm was entitled to hold 108 acres ofp land. That finding has not been challenged and/or agitated on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 7 in this case. We are, therefore, not in a position to interfere with that declaration.