KALAKONDA RAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a land owner of Sithanagaram of Chintalapudi Taluq. He furnished a declaration of the lands held by the family unit of which he is a member under Sec. 8 of the Andbra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The same was enquired into and the surplus land was determined. When he was asked to file a statement giving the surrender particulars he requested the first respondent to revise his holding in the light of G O Ms No. 813 (Revenue) dt. 19-6-75 (for short "the G O"). According to the petitioner under the said G 0, Chintalapudi taluq was declared as a drought prone area and hence the extent of standard holding should be increased by 121/2% in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner. Since the benefit of the said G O was not given to him in computing the holding of the petitioner, he filed I A No. 90 of 1981 under Rule 16(5) (b) of the A P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules. 1974 (for short "the Rules") for revising the holding in conformity with the G O. As his request was rejected, he filed C R P No. 1079 of 1982. Gangadhar Rao, J dismissed that Civil Revision Petition at the stage of admission following the decision of this court in M Anjaiah Vs. State of A P. 1980 (1) APLJ 412.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that when his father and brothers have filed declarations, the authorities constituted under the Act have given the benefit of Sec. 5(1) (iv) (a) of the Act and table 8 of the Ceiling Rules in pursuance of the GO; that the appellate Tribunal held that the benefit of Sec. 5 (1) (iv) (a) of the Act must be given to the petitioner by enhancing the area of ceiling by 121/2% over and above the ceiling area and that this court has confirmed the said decision in CRP Nos. 4001, 4002 and 4003 of 1980. Complaining of the discrimination between the ceiling area determined for him and his family members in respect of the lands situate at Chintalapudi area, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the O O in the case of the petitioner also and suitably revise his holding by enhancing the ceiling limit by 121/2%-

(3.) When the writ petition came up before B P Jeevan Reddy, J (as he then was), the learned lodge passed an order dt. 5-9-83 converting this writ petition into a review petition of the order of Gangadhar Rao, J dt. 18-6- 82 passed in C R P No. 1079 of 1985.