ANNAPURNA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under Section 21 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, challenging judgment dated 13 -06 -2005 passed in L.R.A.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal -cum -I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The revision petitioner is the daughter of late Ruthala Latchapatrudu. The said Lathcapatrudu filed a declaration under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). He had shown the present revision petitioner as his minor daughter, aged 15 years among the members of his family unit. The Land Ceiling Tribunal determined his holding and ultimately found that he was holding a surplus land of Ac.7.13 cents and the matter was carried to the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner, one of the minor daughters of the original declarant, filed a petition for reopening of the land ceiling case of her father on two grounds viz., that she was a major by the cut off date i.e., 01 -01 -1975 and that by virtue of the A.P.Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, she became entitled to coparcenery rights in her father's estate, as by then she was unmarried. The Primary Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that Section 29 - A of the Hindu Succession Act has no retrospective effect and the revision petitioner is not entitled to any benefits thereunder and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam to take possession of lands in Sy.No.22/2 measuring an extent of Ac.6 -93 cents by his order dated 06 -04 -1998 in L.C.C.No.943 of 1975. That order was challenged by the revision petitioner by filing L.R.A.No.3 of 1998, which was also dismissed by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Makineni Venkata Sujatha Vs. Land Reforms Tribunal and another1 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Utukuri Sarat Kumar and others vs. Authorised Officer2. Heard both sides.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submits that though they produced the date of birth certificates showing that the revision petitioner is a major as on 01 -01 -1975, the same was not considered and the Primary Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal did not consider that aspect and held that the revision petitioner is a minor as on notified date 01 -01 -1975. She also contended that in Nimmagadda Sambasiva Rao vs. State of A.P., Land Reforms, Guntur3 and also G.Valli @ Rayaprolu and another vs. State of A.P. Land Reforms and others4, this Court held that the unmarried daughters can claim share along with sons and the shares of unmarried daughters have to be excluded from the holding of the father.

(3.) IT is to be seen that the Appellate Tribunal relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Makineni Venkata Sujatha case (1 supra) wherein it is held that: