STATE OF A P Vs. SINGIREDDY RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the revision petition filed.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondent No. 2 was a declarant in respect of lands covered by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short the Act). The declaration was filed by respondent No. 2 Maqbool Alam under Section 8(1) of the Act in response to the public notice in Form IV as required under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules) containing the particulars of the land and the persons holding such lands in respect of the declaration received which was duly notified. By various modes the fact of receipt of the declaration and its availability for public inspection in the office of Land Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad (in short the Tribunal) was announced by beat of drums in all the villages in which the lands were situated on 6-7-1975. The declaration was referred to the Tahsildar under Section 4(5) for local inspection and verification. A copy received from the Tahsildar, Adilabad was furnished to the declarant and to the officer authorized by the Government in this behalf. No objection was received in response to the public notice. Thereafter an enquiry was held on 5-10-1976 after issuing notice to the declarant who was present on the date fixed. The officer authorized by the Government i.e. Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms, Adilabad was also present. Enquiry was completed on 22-2-1977. After completion of enquiry by the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad Division, it was held that the declarant holds land in excess of the permissible limit and he was required to surrender excess land under Section 10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice was issued to him under Section 10 (2) of the Act and Form VI under the Rules. According to the verification report which was scrutinized, the family unit consisted of four members i.e. declarant, his wife and two minor unmarried daughters. By order dated 22-2-1977 the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal) held that the family unit was entitled to 1000 standard holdings and since the standard holding was more than the ceiling area under Section 4-A of the Act, which was determined under Section 9 of the Act, the declarant held an extent of 0.9170 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date i.e.on 1-1-1975 and was liable to surrender the excess land. Surrender proceedings were thereafter initiated and the declarant was directed to file surrender statement. On 2-1-1999 respondent No. 2 filed the surrender statement proposing to surrender the lands in Wanvath Village, Adilabad District and the same was accepted by the Tribunal on 2-1-1999. Against the said acceptance of surrender, a third party i.e. respondent No. 1 filed a Claim bearing L.R.A. No. 86 of 1994 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar (in short the Appellate Tribunal) contending that accepting the surrender in respect of land situated in Survey No. 4/B admeasuring Acres 11.07 Guntas of Nanvath Village in lieu of excess land. His stand was that the respondent No. 2 had shown in his declaration that he sold the surrendered land under agreement of sale dated 19-1-1971 and ever since that date, he was in continuous possession of the land by paying land revenue. Grievance was that the Tribunal without considering relevant records accepted the surrender of the land and ignoring the objection petition filed by respondent No. 1 on 26-9-1978. It was, therefore, stated that the observation that no objection was received within the stipulated time is incorrect. The agreement for sale dated 6-2-1971 and certain other documents were filed. The Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 28-9-1994 allowed the appeal and directed exclusion of Acre 11.07 Guntas of Nanvath Village. The rest of the order was however upheld. Tribunal was directed to complete the recovery proceedings against respondent No. 2 so far as the balance land is concerned.

(3.) Appellant-State filed Civil Revision assailing the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal but the same was dismissed by the impugned order.