AUTHORISED OFFICER L R Vs. M KONDALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, filed this revision under Sec. 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 21-01-1993 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada, (for brevity 'the appellate Tribunal') in L.R.A.NO. 140 of 1990.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, are as follows: One Merla (Bolla) Jogayyamma (for short 'the declarant') filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act. When the declarant proposed to surrender an extent of Ac. 6.98 cents in S.No. 201 of Surampalem village of Peddapuram taluk, respondents 1 to 4 herein filed objection petitions under Rule 16(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming to be the cultivating tenants of the declarant. Respondents 1 to 4 examined five witnesses, C.W. 1 to C.W. 5 and marked Exs. X-l to X-6 to show that they are the cultivating tenants of the land in question. The Land Reforms Tribunal, ultimately came to the conclusion that respondents1 to 4 are the tenants of the declarant and that the land in their possession has to be included in the holding of the declarant as well as the tenants as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Mohd. Ashrafuddin1 and that the lands in S.No. 201 of Surampalem village, being unencumbered cannot be rejected under Section 10 (5) of the Act for the purpose of surrender of excess land. However, the Land Reforms Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that respondents 1 to 4 are the cultivating tenants of the land to an extent of Ac. 7.00 in S.No. 201 of Surampalem village. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, filed appeal in so far as the order of the Tribunal recognising the respondents 1 to 4 as cultivating tenants of the declarant. The appellate Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the appeal and hence this revision.

(3.) The order of the appellate Tribunal is challenged as being contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules.