MURALIDHAR N Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LRT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur a petition under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1974 read with Rule 16(5)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms 45 (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 contending that under Sec. 5 of the Land Reforms Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to categorise and classify the lands as set out in the first Schedule to the Land Reforms Act and the Tribunal has to arrive at the correct standard holdings of the petitioners-declarants. Under Rule 5 of the Land Reforms Rules it is clearly stated that each land shall be placed in appropriate class in accordance with its classification as shown in the first Schedule to the Act. The extent of holding shall be determined in respect of each class of land in accordance with Section 5. But in the instant case, the Tribunal has not done so and by mistake the Tribunal has treated the non-agricultural lands as mentioned in the petition as agricultural lands. The extents mentioned in the petition i.e., Ac.47-35 cents in various survey numbers are to be treated as non-agricultural lands as the land is covered by boulders, rocks, cart-tracks, etc. and not fit for agriculture purpose. All the non-agricultural lands claimed in the petition are in existence for more than 30 years i.e., prior to 1-1-1975, the notified date, and the petitioners sought for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the lands even to-day and they have not taken compensation. So this case is still pending.

(2.) The Land Reforms Tribunal appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to note the extent of the non-agricultural lands as prayed for by the petitioners in C.C. No.2251/75-DMV. The Advocate-Commissioner after inspecting the schedule land in the presence of counsel for both the sides submitted his report and Mandal Surveyor had also filed his report in respect of each survey number in which the petitioners are having lands. The Land Reforms Tribunal after examining both the parties and on a consideration dismissed the petition of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have already surrendered the surplus lands to the Government long back. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, the petitioners preferred an Appeal.

(3.) The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur, on a consideration of facts and placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Laxma Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it is held as undei.-