LAWS(SC)-1997-7-49

KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On July 08, 1997
KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on August 7, 1996 in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner filed declaration in respect of certain lands under his holding and requested for exclusion of lands from his holding. The primary Tribunal found that the family of the petitioner was holding 0.1358 standard holding of land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. It was confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993. Resultantly, notice in Form VI was issued to the petitioner to surrender the said excess land under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (for short, the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an I.A. before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru seeking appointment of a Commissioner stating that 5 acres 66 cents of the lands are non-agricultural lands and, therefore, it is required to be excluded from his holding. By order dated March 24, 1990, it rejected the application, but, on revision before the Land Reforms Tribunal in I.A. No. 5/90, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted his report on July 17, 1990 stating that the aforesaid lands were required to be excluded from the holding. He found the finding that it consisted of two hay-racks and a flowing channel (Vagu) etc. The Tribunal considered the same and rejected the petition. On revision, the High Court has upheld the same in the impugned order. Thus, this special leave petition.

(3.) It is an admitted position that in his declaration, the petitioner claimed exclusion of three acres in Survey No. 73 stating that cattle-sheds, hay-racks etc., were existing on the said land. The Advocate-Commissioner appointed inspected the lands and found no such hay-rack in Survey Nos. 97 or 73; however, he found a hay-rack, cattle-shed and two sugarcane heaps in Survey No. 98. Accordingly, the said survey number stood excluded from the holding of the family. This fact would clearly indicate that at the time when the declaration was filed by the petitioner as on the notified date, the hay-racks etc., were not existing in the present Survey No. 65/1 in an extent of 5 acres, 66 cents in Polasavapalli village, as found by the Commissioner. Since they were found existing, it would be obvious that after the declaration became final and was confirmed by way of dismissal of the civil revision petition by the High Court, the petitioner set up hay-racks etc. and sought to have them excluded.