STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. AANTHAM VENKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision by the Government, the only point that has been raised is whether under section 4-A of the Andhra Predes Land Reforms (Celling on Agreculture Holdings) Act, where there is deficit in father's holding and surplus in major son's holding, can such deficit be made good by ploughing from the excess of the son into the father's holding. It is now well-settled that such course is not cortemplated under section 4-A of the Act. It is only the converse case that is contemplated bv the said section and therefore. the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous and the same is set aside by holding that the father is not ertitled to have his holding increased by the extent cf deficit in his holding from the excess holding of his son.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondent while conceding the legal position on this aspect of the matter, however, raised two point Firstly, it is contended that the respondent is entitled to support his case though no revision has been "preferred on a ground other than the one which has been raised in the revision and secondly, under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere as a general appallate Court, being Superior Court, if there has been any error on the basis of equit and jusrice Case is sought to be relied on in support there of is: Rambhai v. Dabhi Ajitkwnar, wherein the Supreme Court while considering with reference to the provisions enacted in the Representation cf the People Act, held:

(3.) The Supreme Court in this case was dealing as a Court of Appeal. The next case is B. K. Shastri v. M. Sukhatia, which was equally a case under the Representation of the People Act and the Court while dealing the matter as a Court of Appeal held: