G NARAYANAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Counsel heard.

(2.) As we are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we propose to set out the few facts necessary for the appreciation of the arguments before us very breifly.

(3.) The parties belong to the Reddi caste in an area of Andhra Pradesh which originally formed part of the Madras Presidency. Appellant No. I is the illatom son-in-law of appellant No. 2. The appellants filed their respective declarations under See. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act"). In his declaration, appellant No. 2 claimed an increase in the ceiling unit permitted to be held by him on the ground that appellant No. 1 as his illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of majority had a share in the properties of his father-in-law, appellant No. 2. Appellant No. 2 deposed in the inquiry held that appellant No. I was entitled to a half share in his properties as his illatom son-in-law. Both of them claimed that appellant No. I was entitled to the aforesaid share under an agreement (Exhibit Al). The Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur by its judgment dated May 31, 1977, rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the declarant, appellant No.2 held surplus holding to an extent of 0.4109 standard acres and directed him to surrender the excess land. Appellant No. I was declared as not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur which was dismissed on November 4,1977. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal made by the said Tribunal, the appellants filed a Civil Revn. Petn. No. 3974 of 1977 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court by a common judgment along with other connected matters on April 21, 1978. This appeal by special leave is one of the appeals directed against the common judgment of the said High Court.