KAREDDY MANYAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent filed a declaration under the provisions of A. P. Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 (the Act). Initially he was found to be holding 1.1130 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. After several appeals and revisions ultimately his holding was held to be 0.1822 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area. During the course of surrender proceedings also he raised several objections and ultimately, since he failed to file a surrender statement, the Tribunal selected the lands for surrender and passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act on 4-11-1988. Thereupon revision petitioners filed an appeal LRA No. 2/89 contending that she is the first wife of the second respondent and that her father-in-law gave her Ac.21-23 guntas of land, from out of the land proposed to be taken in surrender, towards her maintenance at the time of the second marriage of the second respondent and had also executed a deed in her favour and since she is in possession of the said land, it cannot be taken possession of in the surrender proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner and remanded the case to the Primary Tribunal with a direction to give opportunity to the revision petitioner to prove her case. The revision petitioner took several adjournments for producing evidence on her behalf. The Primary Tribunal adjourned the case to 16-01-1993 finally for final hearing. But as the revision petitioner did not choose to adduce evidence in support of her claim, the Primary Tribunal rejected the contention of the revision petitioner and the LRA No.3/1993 preferred by the revision petitioner against that order also was dismissed. Hence this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the father-iin-law of the revision petitioner had given Ac.21-23 guntas of land in S.No.501 and 504, towards maintenance of the revision petitioner, and had also executed a deed in her favour, and since the second respondent, with a view to defraud the revision petitioner, is not opposing the surrender of the said land, the order accepting surrender of the said land, is unsustainable. He contended that various documents produced by the revision petitioner establish the factum of her possession and so the order dismissing the petition without conside'ring the prayer of the revision petitioner to give her an opportunity to present her case is against to all canons of justice.

(3.) This revision against the second respondent, who is the declarant, was dismissed on 30-06-2006 for not taking out summons to him and that order became final. For that reason only this revision has to be dismissed. But I do not wish to dismiss the revision on technical grounds.