JANA NAGAMALLAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the declarant is the petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' for brevity) dated 4-7-1997 in LRA No.34 of 1996. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 24-9-1996 of the Land Reforms Tribunal ('primary Tribunal' for brevity) in LCC No.1073, 797, 959/RZO/75.

(2.) The petitioner fought the litigation under the Act up to the Supreme Court and it was finally determined that he holds 1.5802 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioner, therefore, proposed to surrender an extent of Ac.1-32 cents i.e., Ac.0-19 cents in R.S. No.463/lA, Ac.0-55 cents in R.S. No.462/5, Ac. 0-20 cents in R.S. No.460/1, Ac.0-05 cents in R.S. No.713/2 and Ac.0-33 cents in R.S. No.795/1B, of Sakhinetipalli village, East Godavari District. However, the lands were not accepted for the purpose of surrendering excess by the primary Tribunal on the ground that there is terraced building, church building and ZP school on the land which are constructed subsequent to 1-1-1975 and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to surrender some other lands. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there were structures and buildings in the land proposed to be surrendered even prior to 1-1-1975. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 17-9-1996 and disbelieved the petitioner's contention that there were buildings and structures even prior to 1-1-1975 and accordingly held that the petitioner is liable to surrender some other land. The petitioner's contention that no notice was issued to him before refusing to accept the surrendered land was also rejected by the Appellate Tribunal in furtherance of their reasonable reading of sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act. In this revision petition, the petitioner contends that even if there are no buildings or structures prior to 1-1-1975, the Appellate Tribunal erred in placing burden on this aspect on the petitioner and that the prescribed procedure under Section 10 of the Act was not followed. It is also contended that the primary Tribunal ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner before refusing to accept the surrendered land.