MEDULLA HUSSAINAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st petitioner claims to be the wife and the petitioners 2 to 4 claim to be the minor sons of Modulla Thirupem Reddi, who is the declarant. During the pendency of the proceedings before the primary authority under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Moldings) Act, 1973, they ap peared before that authority and alleged that they had partitioned the property as long back as 1970 and thereafrer some more properties were acquired by the petitioners from third-parties. THE primary authority went into the contentions advanced by the petitioners but did not choose to accept them. THE petitioners, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. But the Appellate Tribunal held that the appellants had no locus standi to prefer the appeal and consequently rejected it. Hence this revision.

(2.) MR. Somakonda Reddi brings to my notice the order of the primary authority and also the provision of sub-rule 7 of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and contends that the petitioners herein were given an opportunity to put forth their case before the primary authority which they did. The primary authority had disposed of their contentions on merits and when such is the case, the petitioners definitely had locus standi to file the appeal before the appellate tribunal. To my mind this contention has some force. According to sub-rule (7) of Rule 16, any person other than the declarant who satisfies the Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal that he has substantial interest in the matter, may at any time during the pendency of the proceedings, be permitted to appear and be heard and to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnessess. In the light of the above rule, the primary authority had given permission to the petitioners to put forth their case which they did; and in these circumstances, it would not be proper to hold that they had no locus standi to file the appeal, I am, there fore of the opinion that this revision. should be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the case remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal to register the appeal preferred by the petitioners and dispose of it on merits after giving them an opportunity of being heard Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100/-.