K ANJANAYYA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND REFORMS KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel on record and also perused the material available on record.

(2.) The CRP is filed as against an order dated 24-8-1999 made in LRA No.43/ 94 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool, filed under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The revision petitioner is the appellant-declarant in LRA No.43/94 and the said L.R.A. was filed aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Kurnool, dated 22-9-1994, made in CC No.3506/ALR/75. The main grievance of the revision petitioner/declarant is that the impugned order is not in accordance with law since it was made on gross violation of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'Act', and Rule 7(3) of the Rules made thereunder. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal had not appreciated the fact that the impugned order of the Primary Tribunal dated 22-9-1994 doesn't speak about any notice having been given under Section 10(5) of the Act. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in CRP No.6223/78 (Shyamalamma v. State of A.P.) dated 6-4-1979. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, supporting the impugned order, had submitted that, no doubt, the Mandal Revenue Offficer, Chippagiri, had selected the lands suO motu and proposed for acceptance and public notice in From No. VIII was issued and no objections were received from the public and hence, under Section 10(3) of the Act, the proposal made by the Mandal Revenue Officer had been approved and there is no illegality or legal infirmity in this regard.

(3.) It is revealed from the record that the suo motu powers had been exercised for choosing the properties in the present case. The orders of the Tribunals below do not clearly and specifically specify the service of notice relating to Section 10(5) of the Act and Rule 7(3) of the Rules. In fact, in CRP No.6223/78, dated 6-4-1979, it was held that where the Tribunal itself had selected lands for surrender by declarant without notice and without following the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Act and Rule 7(3) of the Rules, such proceedings cannot be said to be valid and possession taken in pursuance of such proceedings, cannot be said to be legal. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit that the C.R.P. has to be allowed and the matter has to be remitted back to the Primary Trubunal i.e., the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Kurnool, for the purpose of following the procedure as contemplated by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Primary Tribunal for the purpose indicated above. The CRP is allowed to the extent indicated above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.