JAGADESHWARIAH Vs. NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions raise a common question though the petitioners are different.

(2.) In C.R.P. No. 946/63 one P. Jagdeshwariah filed a petition before the R.D.O Hyderabad -East on 22.2.1957 for issuing a reservation certificate to an extent of land-measuring Ac. 187-22 Gun. It was his contention that he had no means of livelihood and required the land for his personal cultivation.The R.D O. after an enquiry rejected the petition on the ground that a partition has been effected between father and son in 1956 to deprive the tenants of their rights and that the petitioner had more than two family holdings in his personal cultivation. Aggrieved by his order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Collector. The Joint Collector by his order dated 24.12.1962 dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the lower court stressing on the fact that there was lack of good faith on the post of the petitioner in attempting to secure the reservation of the lands. This C.R.P. is dierected against the said order.

(3.) In C. R. P. 1309 of 1963 the petitioner is one P, Raj Lingaiah, a minor under the guardianship of his mother. He applied for reservation of land on 22.2.1957 that he had no means of livelihood and the lands were required tor his personal cultivation. The R.D.O. rejected the petition after an enquiry holding that the partition in 1957 was made for the purpose of depriving the tenants of their rights On appeal, the Joint Collector by his order 'dated 2442.62 dismis appeal No the ground of lack of good faith on the part of the petitioner. The two C.R.P.S. therefore, raise a common question whether under section' 44 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, the bona fide requirements of the petitioners seeking reservation constitute an integral part for the issuance of reservation certificate, The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitions for reservation were filed under the proviso to section 44 of the Act, which does not incorporate the conditions embodied in sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act The courts below, therefore, were not justified in holding the bona fides of the petitioners as a condition requisite for the grant of a reservation certificate. Secion 44 (1) reads as under: