MOHD TAHER MIRZA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment, dated 16-9-2005, in L.R.A. No.8 of 2002 passed by the Court of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, N.T.R.Nagar, Hyderabad, under Section 21 of A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity). The facts leading to filing of this revision petition, in brief, are noticed hereunder. The father of the two petitioners, Mohammed Mirza filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act showing the agricultural land in his holding before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District. By proceedings, dated 22-12-1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in C.C.No.CH/2961/ 75 (declaration filed by father of the petitioners) determining an extent of 4.7947 standard holdings as excess land owned by the declarant on the notified date, i.e., 1-1-1975. The declarant also surrendered excess land to the Government, which was also accepted by the Land ReformsTribunal. The entire proceedings became final. In the year 1992, the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 4-A of the Act for re-opening the proceedings and for re-determining the standard holdings out of the lands declared by the original declarant. They claim that they, being the major sons on the notified date, are entitled to one standard holding each. The petition was dismissed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, they approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Act. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the original authority. After remand by order, dated 26-2-2002, the Land Reforms Tribunal re-determined the excess holding observing that the petitioners and original declarant are entitled to three standard holdings instead of one standard holding as was determined earlier in 1976. The Land Reforms Tribunal came to the conclusion that the family of the original declarant consists of his wife and two major sons, i.e., the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the State preferred appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal being L.R.A.No.8 of 2002, which was dismissed (sic. allowed) on 16-9-2005.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners herein were major sons when their father filed declaration in 1976 and therefore after coming into force of Section 4-A of the Act with retrospective effect from 1-1-1975, they are entitled for increase of the holding equal to the ceiling area applicable to each of the petitioners. Secondly, he would urge that the impugned judgment is erroneous, in that when initially L.R.A.No.46 of 1994 was remanded for limited purpose, it was improper for the Appellate Tribunal to set-aside the order of the Primary Tribunal.

(3.) This Court perused the order in L.R.A.No.46 of 1994, dated 30-3-1998 and order, dated 26-2-2002, passed by the Primary Tribunal as well as the impugned Judgment. Afterconsidering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court does not find any revisable grave error in the impugned Judgment. Be it noted that Section 21 of the Act confers limited power on this Court to revise any order passed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal only when such order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or failure to exercise jurisdiction or exercise of excessjurisdiction. None of these are present in this case nor they are demonstrated by the petitioners' counsel.