K VENKATAPPA DEAD Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Kantineni Venkatappa filed a declaration on March 3, 1975 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on behalf of his family unit consisting of himself and his two major sons. The declaration was referred to the Tahsildar in whose jurisdiction the land was situate, for local inspection and verification. After the verification report was received, an enquiry was held by the Land Reforms Tribunal. The declarant was represented by an advocate. The deposition of the declarant was recorded. On a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the declarant and the relevant material on record, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed an order dated November 24, 1976 determining the excess holding of each of the three members of the joint family at 03723 standard holding.

(2.) Thereafter, the declarant filed a surrender statement on behalf of all the members of the joint family on August 5, 1977 giving the particulars of the land he proposed to surrender. The total extent of the land surrendered was Ac.31-45 cents. The surrender statement was accepted and the State Government had taken possession of the surrendered land. Compensation of Rs.7,500-00 was ordered to be deposited and it was accordingly deposited. The amount was directed to be deposited by an order dated March 22, 1981. Though a notice was issued to late K. Venkatappa and his two sons to receive the amount, it is stated that they did not receive the amount of compensation. While so, the declarant filed an application on July 26, 1984 purporting to be an objection -cum-review petition under Rule 16(5) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules), which reads as follows: 16(5): "The Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector, Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the power:- (a) to make orders incidental or ancillary to the decision of such officer or authority; (b) to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, either of its own motion or on the application of the parties/"

(3.) In the application filed by the declarant under Rule 16(5), it was mentioned that the computation of ceiling area and awarding of compensation were not done in accordance with law. It has been stated that dry-cum-wetland has been classified as dry land. Therefore, the declarants requested the Land Reforms Tribunal to review the matter and recompute their holding afresh. The Land Reforms Tribunal reconsidered the matter and reclassified the dry-cum-wet land as dry land. Accordingly the Land Reforms Tribunal redetermined the holding of the members of the family. It ordered mat the family unit of the declarant and his two major sons K. Lingappa and K. Ramappa was entitled to hold three standard holdings and that the re-determination of their standard holdings came to 2.0927 which was below the ceiling area. Therefore, it directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, to re-deliver possession of the lands which were already surrendered by them. This order was pronounced on July 10,1986.