T YDDDGIRI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this revision, filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (for short "the Land Ceiling Act") who are the third parties, are aggrieved against the orders in L.R.A. No.34 of 1996 dated 9-9-1997 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be the protected tenants in respect of Survey Nos.18 to 24 (old) equivalent to new survey Nos.24,30 and 39 situate at Meerpet village, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The main grievance of the petitioners is that even though they themselves had filed separate declarations and the very same lands having been included in their holding and declared non-surplus holders, the Tribunal has once again included those lands in the present proceedings arising out of individual declarations filed by the respondents 3 and 4, showing a large extent of land of more than 2,000 acres before the Land Reforms Tribunal in CC Nos.2476, 2477 and 2478 of 1975. However, due to intervening proceedings, the enquiry in these declarations could not be completed earlier. Ultimately as per the orders dated 2-3-1996 it was held that separate orders would be passed in respect of Survey Nos.24, 30 and 39 to an extent of Ac.123-17 cents and also directing the said declarants to surrender 17.9766 S.H as excess. Consequently, the Tribunal sought to proceed for suo motu selection in the absence of any proposals forthcoming from the said declarants.

(3.) The petitioners claim that their father late T. Papi Reddy was the protected tenant and all of them have filed independent declarations in CC Nos.1006, 439, 440, 801, 1009 and 1143 of 1975 showing these lands, claiming themselves as the protected tenants. Accepting the plea, the Tribunal after verification, by orders dated 27-10-1975 and also 14-8-1975 as evidenced by Exs.A-4 to 6, 8 and 12 held that the petitioners viz., the declarants therein are entitled to l/6th share each and thus are non-surplus holders. Now the complaint of the petitioners is that in spite of the said inclusion of these very same lands in their holding, the Tribunal sought to proceed for the surrender of the same in pursuance of the orders holding the respondents 3 and 4 as the surplus land holders on computation of these very lands again. The case of the petitioners is that once they are accepted as the protected tenants and supported by ample evidence on record, and not seriously disputed/ the question of inclusion of the said lands in the holdings of the respondents 3 and 4 does not arise more so when the lands are already included in the petitioners' holding.