G JAYA RAO Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and decree passed in LR.A No. 13 of 1992 dated 27-7-1998 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakolam confirming the order passed in L.C.C No. 1194/PLK/75, 1640/PLK/75 dated 22.2.1992 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal Srikakulam.

(2.) The facts that arie for consideration can be briefly stated as follows; Geinadi Jayarao who is the revision petitioner is the declarant. He has submitted a declaration to the authorities. Thereupon the primary Tribunal after due enquiry has determined the holding of the revision petitioner under Section 9 of the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') on 27.6.1977. The primary Tribunal calculated the total holding at 5.0941 standard holdings and surplus holding at 4.0941 standard holdings. The primary Tribunal rejected the contention of G.K. Rama Rao that he purchased an extent of Ac.15.50 in November, 1970 under sale agreement from Smt. G. Jagajyothi, the wife of the declarant i.e. the revision petitioner. The primary Tribunal also rejected the claim of Smt,P. Umasuresh that she adopted Kumari Srilatha, the tet daughter of the revision petitionerand the adopted daughter was Jfcftted an extent of Ac.13.75 from the properties of Smt. Jagajyothi, the wife of the revision petitioner, The Tribunal also held that G. Ramachandrarao is the minor son of the revision petitioner and the lands shown in Ramachandra Rao's declaration should form part of the holding the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner the declarant in L.C.C. No. 1194/PLK/75 and Smt. P. Umasuresh, the declarant in L.C.C No. 1640/PLK/75 preferred appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam which ended in dismissal. A revision was filed by the revision petitioner herein and Smt.P. Umasuresh before this Court. This Court passed orders dated 12.6.1979 remanding the case to the Land Reforms Tribunal for de novo enquiry, with a direction that the matter be heard after giving due opportunity to the declarants in the C.R.P. After remand of the matter by this Court, notices were issued to both the declarants and the primary Tribunal passed orders under Section 9 of the Act after giving opportunity to both the declarants as per the directions of this Court and reduced the surplus holding to 3.3031 standard holdings in its order dated 9.10.1985 in respect of the revision petitioner herein in L.C.C No. 1194/PLK/75. Aggrieved thereby the revision petitioner herein and Smt. Umasuresh filed appeal, before the appellate Tribunal contending that they were not given adequate opportunity to give evidence. The appellate Tribunal by its order dated 25.8.1987 in L.R.A No. 20 of 1985 remanded the matter to the primary Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law. After remand, the primary Tribunal took up enquiry 'afresh and recorded evidence. Thereafter, it has given, a finding that the declarant failed to prove that there is memorandum of family arrangement and disbelieved the document produced namely Ex. A-2. It is also observed by the primary Tribunal that the family arrangement has not been acted upon. It is also observed by the primary Tribunal that adoption of Kumari Srilatha by Smt Umasuresh is valid adoption taken place with effect from 6.3.1976 on which date adoption deed was registered but not earlier. It has also given a finding that Kumari G. Srilaxmi is not entitled to file a declaration under Section 18 of the Act and she cannot question whether Visakhapatnam Settlement Tract has to be adopted or Srikakulam Settlement Tract has to be adopted. It was also held that Palakonda Taluk should be classified adopting Visakhapatnam Settleemnt Track. Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the declarant is holding lands equivalent to 3.2313 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area a on 1.1.1975 which he is liable to surrender under Section 10(1) of the Act Aggrieved by the same, thy matter has been carried in appeal before the appellate Tribunal by preferring L.R.A No. 13 of 1992. The appellate Tribunal concurred with the findings given by the primary Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Thereupon the declarant preferred this revision.

(3.) Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contends that the appellate Tribunal has not all considered the written arguments submitted by the petitioner where under he has raised the points for consideration. It is also contended that as per the schedule attached to the Act Palakonda falls under Srikakulam tract and that has to be adopted. It is also further contended that neither the primary Tribunal nor the appellate Tribunal considered the evidence and the documents produced.