NAGUBANDI PULLAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Khammam in L.R.A No.57 of 1978. The order under appeal came to be passed in the following circumstances

(2.) Nagubandi Pullamma and her three sons Nagubandi Laxmina- rayana, Nagubandi Janaih and, Nagubandi Mohan Rao had filed sepa- rate declarations C.C.Nos. 2604, 2605,2606 and 2607/75 on the file of the Land Raforms Tribunal, Khammam of their holdings under Sec. 8 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. They were found to be holding land in excess of the ceiling area to which they were entitled. Subsequently the Act was amended under the Amendment Act 10 of 1977 which came into force on 11-7-77 by which sec. 4-A was introduced. Having regard to sec. 4-A read with sec.7 of the Amendment Act 10 of 1977 the petitioners filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal under Sec. 4-A of the Act to dispose of their declarations by applying sec. 4-A. The land Reforms Tribunal by its order dated 10-4-78 held that the 1st petitioner and her three sons were entitled to 4.6000 standard holdings and that an extent of 0.3907 stan- dard holdings was held by them in excess of the ceiling area to which they were entitled as on 1-1 -75. Aggrieved by that order all the three decla- rants filed a joint appeal L R.A.No.57/78 before the Land Reforms Appel- late Tribunal, Khammam. They contended that the lands covered by survey Nos. 369, 370, 393, 394 and 396 situated at Painampalli village ware wrongly computed in the holdings of both Nagubandi Pullamma and her son Nagubandi Laxminarayana, and that these lands which are inclu- ded in the holding of the 3rd appellant should be excluded. They also pleaded that lands bearing survey Nos. 796 and 797 are covered by houses and buildings and as such are not "land" within the meaning of the Act and cannot be computed in their holding. It was also contended that "pote Kharab" land has been wrongly included in their holding. All these three contentions were rejected but the order computing the hold/ng giving benefit of Section 4-A was upheld. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that in the appeal filed against the order dated 10-4-78 the petitioners were not entitled to raise any other point including the above mentioned three points and in that view did not go into the merits of the contentions.

(3.) All the three points now raised by the petitioners have to be allowed on merits. If any land is included in the holding of another declarant with reference to the notified date the same land cannot be included in the holding of any other declarant with reference to the said notified date. If as contended by the petitioners herein the lands bearing survey Nos. 369,370,393,394 and 395 of Fainampalli village have been included in the holding of the mother or any of her sons they cannot be included in the holding of any of the remaining declarants. They can be included in the holding of only one of them.