NUTHAKKI CHINAN BASAVAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Guntur, dated 14th November, 1978 in L. R. A. No. 42 of 1978 remanding the matter to the primary tribunal to find out whether Exhibit B-1 was executed to escape the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The appeal was filed before the appellate Tribunal by a third party.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Chandrasekha Rao learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner owns Ac. 42-00 and has no children. At the time of marriage of his brother's daughters the petitioner gave certaia lands towards "Pasupukumkum" and at a later stage executed gift deeds and got them registered. In all, he executed three gift deeds, but in his declaration he referred to two gift deeds only. The primary tribunal accepted ths gift deeds and found that the petitioner is holding 1.5168 standard holdings, while he is entitled to hold 1.0000 standard holding only. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal L. R. A. No. 476 of 1977 challenging one of the gift deeds. But the appellate tribunal dismissed that appeal. While matters stood thus, a third party by name Doddala Bhadrachalam filed a separate appeal against the order of the primary tribunal, and it was numbered as L. R. A. No. 42 of 1978. It was contended by him before the appellate tribunal that the declarant brought into existence Exhibit B-1 gift deed dated 16th December, 1971 in favour of one of the daughters of his brother viz., Swarajyalakshmi to escape the provisions of the Act and therefore the land covered by the said deed has to be included in the holding of the declarant. He accordingly requested the appellate tribunal to inquire whether Exhibit B-1 is a sham and nominal document. The appellate tribunal was adverted to all these facts in its order. The learned Judge also stated that the declarant filed kist receipts Exhibits A-5 to A-9 showing the payments of land revenue by the donees. It was contended by the declarant that the gift was made in the year 1965, but the document was executed latter in 1971.

(3.) Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appellant and the respondent Doddala Bhadrachalam are the residents of Lingamguntla, Sattenapalli Taluk. The said Bhadrachalam has absolutely no interest in the property. When the proceedings were pending before the primary tribunal, he has not chosen to file any objections. He ought to have filed his objections before the primary tribunal and brought the facts to the notice of the primary tribunal as well as the verifying officer, There was no reference whatsoever to Exhibit B-1 in the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal. For the first time after the Government has filed an appeal in respect of one of the gift deeds, the respondent Bhadrachalam has chosen to file the appeal.