VELPULA ANKALAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The declarant who filed his declaration as provided under section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is the petitioner The petitioner submitted his declaration on behalf of a family unit said to consist of himself, his wife, a major son, a minor son and a minor daughter and wife's mother. According to the report of the Verification Officer, the petitioner has shown Ac. 28-05 cents of dry land, as an owner and as a purchaser in respect of Ac. 8-35 cents of dry land, and the total land held by the petitioner as Ac. 36 40 cents of dry land. The land owned by his wife is shown as Ac.39-21 cents of dry land. He gave the total extent as Ac. 75-61 cents.

(2.) In his evidence before ihe Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, the petitioner has stated that he and his sons constitute a joint Hindu family, the lands which stand in his name are their joint family property, and all his sons have got equal shares along with him in the same, and they jointly acquired the lands and they live by agriculture. In cross-examination he has stated that he has no proof of his having purchased the land on behalf of his sons also. The petitioner has also stated in his evidence that the lands which stand in the name of his wife are those which originally- belonged to his wife's father, who died son less leaving his wife and the mother- in-law, and in the properties of his father-in-law, both his wife and mother in-law have equal shares. He has further stated that at the time of the marriage of his daughter, Sitamma about 14 years back, the declarant gave away the land of Ac. 5-00 comprised in Survey number 451; and Ac. 1-25 cents comprised in survey number 356; and the petitioner's wife gave Ac. 2-00 of land comprised in survey number 369 to one Chimata Bikshamaiah, husband of her cousin sister's daughter. I

(3.) Both the Land Reforms Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal in the appeal filed by the petitioner negatived all the contentions of the petitioner and treated the entire extent of Ac. 75-61 cents as one holding and on that basis determined the excess area to be surrendered.