ELAMATL KRISHNA REDDY Vs. MOHAMMAD AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revision petitions are filed under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against a common order dated 10-10-1996 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-Second Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. All the CRPs shall stand disposed of by this common judgment in view of the common questions of fact and law arising therein.

(2.) One Mohammed Ahmed claiming to be the Pattedar of a large extent of Ac.737.37 guntas comprised in various survey numbers of Turkayemjal village filed a declaration under the Act through one Shri K.V.S. Sastry, the duly constituted G.P.A. of Mohammed Ahmed. After determining the excess land, the Land Reforms Tribunal ordered Mohammed Ahmed to surrender the land in excess of the ceiling limit. The matter was carried on in appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal for further enquiry. After further enquiry, the land Reforms Tribunal determined the excess holding of Mohammed Ahmed under Section 9 of the Act declaring that he is holding 8.9898 Standard Holdings in excess of the ceiling limit. The said order of the Tribunal dated 13-10-1977 was challenged by one of the claimants in L.R.A. 2443 of 1977. The same was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal on 20-5-1978. In the meanwhile other persons who claim the land and who desired that their lands be excluded from the holding of the pattedar filed L.R.A.Nos.l to 3 of 1991. These appeals were allowed and were remitted to the Primary Tribunal by setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 13-10-1977 by which the holding was determined at 8.9898 Standard Holdings. After remand, the matter went to the Land Reforms Tribunal, which issued notices to all the appellants in L.R.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 1991. All the appellants or persons claiming through them filed petitions justifying their claims. The three categories of persons who appeared before the Land Reforms Tribunal include protected tenants who had ownership Certificates under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the, Tenancy Act'), those persons who had obtained certificates under Section 50-E of the Tenancy Act or those persons who claim to be in possession of the lands by virtue of unregistered documents as evidenced by the relevant entries in the Pahanies and Faisal pattis of the village of Turkayemjal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 29-9-1995 held that the lands in S.Nos.523,531 to 535 and 542 to an extent of Ac.25-30 Guntas are covered by the Certificates of Validation of Alienation and Transfers vide proceedings No.E/64/78, dated 10-4-1979 issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad (East) and accordingly ordered the extent of Ac.25-30 guntas to be deleted from the holding of the declarant in C.C. No.E/1801/1975. The Tribunal also ordered deletion of the lands covered by S. Nos.500 to 503, 509,523, 538, 539/2, 548/2, 653/2, 656/2, 650/2, 657 and 659 for the reason that the persons claiming to be in possession of the lands in these survey numbers proved their adverse possession over the lands. It is interesting to note that some of the claimants who filed petitions before the Land Reforms Tribunal claim to have been purchased the lands from one Mehboob Begum as well as Rahamunnisa Begum or from the purchasers of Mehaboob Begum or Rahamunnisa Begum. The Primary Tribunal, however, has not recorded any finding on the question as to whether Mohamed Ahmed was the exclusive Pattedar of the lands in question or not. Be that as it may, all the petitioners herein who could not appear for one reason or the other before the Land Reforms Tribunal, after the matter was remanded, approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal praying to exclude and delete the lands in their possession from the holding of the declarant. They claimed the lands in various survey numbers and the details of the same are furnished by way of a statement by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, which is as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_359_ALT2_2001Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 10-12-1996 dismissed the Appeals holding that the Appellants did not place any documents in proof of the allegation that they are in possession of the property or that they obtained certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. The Appellate Tribunal, on a point of law, held that a person by becoming merely a protected tenant and obtaining ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act cannot get any right under the Land Reforms Act. This is erroneous. This Court in R. Jagadisiwaraiah vs. State of A.P. and Gade Suresh vs. Government of A.P. has held that the determination of the holding of the tenants under the Land Reforms Act treating the tenant as the owner cannot be postponed merely because an ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act is not obtained by the protected tenant. Apart from the erroneous conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal, the impugned order also suffers from improper exercise of power vested in it. It is incumbent on the appellate Tribunal to at least briefly refer to the contents of the documents placed by the appellants and record its findings but the same is missing in the impugned order. Further, there was no effective or noteworthy opposition to the appeal by the Government except the contention that as directed by the R.D.O. the possession of the exess land held by the declarant was taken on 20-11-1990. The appellate Tribunal was not right in giving undue importance to the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the possession was taken on 20-11-1990. A reading of Section 10 of the Act shows that immediately after determination of the excess holding under Section 9, a notice is to be given under Section 10(1) of the Act requiring a declarant to file a statement of the land to be surrendered. If the declarant fails to do so, even then the law contemplates that the excess land is "deemed to have been taken possession of by the Government'. In the light of the deeming provision under Section 10(3) of the Act, the appellate Court ought to have been more circumspect in giving due weight to the contention that possession was taken on 20-11-1990. In any event, as already noticed, the appeal filed by Mohammed Ahmed was remitted to the Land Reforms Tribunal for redetermination of the holding. LRA Nos.1 to 3 which were filed by some of the persons claiming to be possessors of the lands were again allowed and remitted on 29-10-1992. This goes to show that when the matter was remitted by the learned Appellate Tribunal on 29-10-1992 the said Tribunal ignored the factum of the Government's taking possession of the land in November, 1990.