LOLLA VISWANDAHAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred by the learned single Judge of this court to the Bench, is in the following terms:

(2.) The civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.l of 1993 under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act'). A contention had been raised before the learned single judge that the burden of proving whether the 6th petitioner was a major or a minor on the notified date is always on the Authorised Officer and nnt on the declarant. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in M. Anantha Reddy v. The State of A.P., The contention of the respondents, on the other hand is that having regard to the provision of Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden would be on the declarant and not on the Authorised Officer. Section 9 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) It is not in dispute that in terms of the provisions of the Act, on receipt of the declaration furnished or information obtained in terms of Section 8 of the Act, the function of the Authorised Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act begins only thereafter. It is not in dispute that in the declaration, the 6th petitioner herein has been shown as minor.