VENKATA REDDI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS AND URBAN LAND CEILINGS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be absolute owner of the land admeasuring about Acs.21.90 gts. comprised in Sy.Nos.123 to 127, 130, 132, 133, 136 and 137 situated at Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) He asserts that they are agricultural dry and wet lands which are being cultivated till now. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (' the ULC' Act for brevity), the petitioner filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act before the second respondent claiming the lands to be agricultural lands and, therefore, they cannot be declared as vacant lands under the ULC Act. After processing the declaration, the second respondent issued a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act on 28-9-1977 accepting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.123 to 127, 132, 133 and 137 to an extent of Acs.10.20 gts. which stood excluded from cultivation as per Section 2(o) of the ULC Act. However, the second respondent treated the land comprised in Sy.Nos.130 and 136 admeasuring an extent of 46,135 Sq.mtrs. as vacant land. It was for the reason that during the period 1970-71 to 1975-76, in the Revenue records the land was shown as fallow. The petitioner submitted his objections on 22-10-1984 and 25-10-1984 after receiving notice under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the ULC Act. In the objections, he reiterated that the land in Sy.Nos.130 and 136 was agricultural land and that they are being used mainly for agriculture only. As such, they are treated as agricultural lands and are liable to be excluded from the computation under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the second respondent got an enquiry made and obtained a report dated 29-10-1984. Thereafter, the second respondent conducted enquiry on various dates. The petitioner alleges that he was not served with any notice and finally on 19-5-1986 the second respondent issued final statement under Section 8(4) rejecting the claim of the petitioner and treating the land in Sy.Nos.130 and 136 as vacant land as they were kept fallow. The petitioner also alleges that the report dated 12-9-1985 and another report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey dated 2-4-1986 were not communicated to him before passing orders/issuing final statement under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. The petitioner also asserts that these lands were shown as agricultural lands in the proceedings under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in C.C.No.135W75 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, that after getting the enquiry made, in the statement it is shown that the lands were cultivated from 1971 to 1975 and that the Land Reforms Tribunal declared the petitioner as non-surplus landholder as per orders datead 20-12-1975. There is a well and alugu in the lands which are being used for the purpose of irrigation. There is no material before the second respondent to show that the lands are being used for non-agricultural purpose.