MAKINENI VENKATA SUJATHA Vs. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15354/2000 was dismissed at the stage of admission by an order dated 29-9-2000 after hearing learned senior Counsel for the petitioner. It was stated in that order that reasons would follow later. The following is the reasoned order.

(2.) The petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act No. 1 of 1973). The notified date under the Act with respect to which the ceiling of a declarant for his family unit had to be determined was 1-1-75. The 2nd respondent filed a declaration on 11-4-1975 (L.C.C. 2516, 2517/KDK/75). The petitioner was minor as on 1-1-1975 and she was included in the family unit of her father, the declarant. It was determined that the father's family unit had excess land to be surrendered. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal in 1987 in the land ceiling proceedings pertaining to her father claiming that by virtue of Section 29A as introduced by the A. P. Amendment Act 13/86 to the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30/56) as inserted w.e.f. 5-9-85, the petitioner had become a coparcener being unmarried on that date (she got married on 26-8-86), and therefore had equal rights as a son. It was contended that her father's holding would therefore get diminished and he need not have to surrender excess land. Alternatively, she also relied on Section 4A introduced in Andhra Pradesh Land (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 10 of 1977 w.e.f. 1-1-75 claiming that she was in the position of a major son and was entitled to the share of a major son. It was contended that to that extent, the father would be entitled to an extra unit and need not have to surrender any excess land.

(3.) These two contentions were rejected by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 20-6-88, and on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal in LRA/88 on 23-3-94. The Civil Revision Petition 1957/94 filed by her was dismissed on 28-6-2000 by the High Court. This special leave petition was preferred against the said order.