M BHAGYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Diligence on the part of the concerned authorities in this case would have turned out a different decision. The facts are that on 2-5-1960 the petitioner herein was married to one Kutumba Rao who deid on 16-2-1961. Thereafter on the advice of elders the inlaws of the petitioner herein adopted one Satyanarayana and the young widow was married to the said Satyanarayana on 19-4-1961. They had a happy marital life for over Seven years and begot two children also. But, then differences arose and at the intervention of elders there was a settlement on 15-6-1968 resulting in the deeds of separation. Though as per the custom this deed of separation would not have put an end to the wedlock. However as per the said deed they were living separately and in fact the petitioner filed 0.P. No. 162/71 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage and the decree was passed on 23-12-1971. A certified copy of the said decree was applied for on 6-1-1972 and the same was furnished on 28-2-1972.

(2.) In view of the Land Ceiling Act Satyanarayana filed a separate declaration in C.C.No. 258/75 before the Gannavaram Land Reforms Tribunal and likewise, the petitioner filed a declaration in C.C.No. 311/75 before the Vijayawada Land Reforms Tribunal. Verification reports filed therein supported the case of the declarants. In fact the determination on the declaration filed by the said Satyanarayane also was made and it was held that he was holding less than one standard holding. Since no appeal was preferred by the Government, it became final. Before any determination was made on the declaration filed by the petitioner, a letter was received by the Tribunal addressed by one D.R. Sundaram with a copy to the Collector stating that the divorce obtained by the parties was of recent nature and there was also no truth in the said divorce and therefore, an enquiry may be conducted. This petition of the said D.R. Sundaram was found in the record at page 99 The copy received by the Collector also was sent to the Tribunal on 25-6-1976. The Tribunal set in motion the enquiry proceedings by issuing a notice to the said Sundaram but he did not turn up. From the lecord it appears that the matter was enquired into even with the assistance of Central Bureau of Investigation. However, nothing came out of it and eventually the Tribunal passed an order on the declaration of the petitioner on 5-10-1976 holding that she was having, 1.0111 1/2 standard holdings. It may also be stated that the order made on the declaration filed by the said Satyanarayana was also made available to the Tribunal at Vijayawada when the determination was made on the declaration filed by the petitioner. In pursuance thereof surrender of the surplus land was also made in the year 1976 itself and the same was accepted. Thereafter she sold away two extents of land under Exs. A 5 and A-6 by way of registered sale deeds comprising about 11 acres. Satyanarayana also sold Ac.S.31 cents undor registered sale deeds dated 9-6-1976 and 19-2-1977 for treatment of cancer, which he was suffering from. Eventually the said Satyanarayana died on 22-2-1977.

(3.) It is thereafter, almost after three years on 8-11-1978 the Authorised Officer filed a petition before the Vijayawada Land Reforms Tribunal for correction of a mistake within the meaning of Rule16 (5) of the Rules framed under the A.P. Land Ceiling Act, It was stated in the petition that the 0 P. 162 of 71 actually was filed not on 12-1-71, but on 12-71. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioner and also the said Satyanarayana was incorrect and it was motivated and therefore, the same be rectified by re-opening the matter. Therefore, notices were issued on 8-12-1978 to the petitioner and the said Satyanarayana, who had since deceased. Counter was filed. However, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that there was no case for review, by its order dated, 13-3-1979. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, after summoning the O.P. records from the Sub-court found that the 0 P. was filed on 12-11-1971 and therefore, it held that it came within the ambit of Rule 16 (5) and the matter may be reviewed since there was fraud. It is this order that is challenged in this Revision Petition contending that no fraud was played because there cannot have been any oblique motive at a time when the O.P. was filed because the ordinance with regard to Land Ceiling Act came only on 3-5-1972 and therefore 'the provisions in particular the one enacted in Section 7 (4) of the Land Celling Act' could not have been visualised; in fact the petition filed by D.R. Sundaram had put the Authorities on notice and they made enquiries and there was said to be no suppression of fact or fraud being played and consequently, the Tribunal cannot be held to have any power to review as per the decision of this Court. It is also contended that the Authorised Officer did not particularise the material facts as to when and how he came to know the fraud because it is within thirty days from the date of the knowledge that a petition for review could be filed. In fact the petition filed by the Authorised Officer is vague. The further contention is that there could not be any indefiniteness about the re-open, of the case.