RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are by the declarants in C.C.Nos. 1246/76 KVR and 1277/75 KVR on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal (Kavali Division), Kavali, and are directed against the common order in A.C.Nos.671 and 672 of 1976 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nellore.

(2.) The petitioner in C.R.P. No.l369/77 (who is hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st petitioner') is the father of the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1370/77. They filed two separate declarations and in each of these cases, the Land Reforms Tribunal determined that they are holding 0.7649 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area to which they are respectively entitled. The petitioners bad pleaded that the lands covered by the registered sale-deeds, Exs. x-3 and x-4 dated 24-6-1971, Exs.A-1 and A-2 dated 1-5-1972, and Ex.A-4 dated 2-5-1972 should be excluded form the holding of the petitioners family units. The Tribunals rejected the petitioners' plea, mainly on the ground that they are subsequent to 24-1-1971 and were to be disregarded under Section 7(1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or they were to be disregarded under Sec,7(2) of the Act.

(3.) Under Ex.X-3, the registered sale-deed dated 24-6-1971, an extent of Ac.3-87 cents of land situated in Nayudupalem, and, under Ex.X-4, registered sale-deed, dated 24 6-1971, an extent of Ac.2-00 in Nayudupalen were sold by the 1st petitioner. These lands were mortgaged under a registered mortgage deed dated 26-2 1969 with the 1st petitioner. The mortgagor was unable to discharge the debt due under the mortgage-deed. It is the case of the petitioners that the only mode of recovering the mortgage debt was to purchase these lands. The first petitioner therefore acquired the same under the saledeed dated 2-9-1970. But, these lands situated in Nayudupalem Village 16 miles away from the native place of the 1st petitioner, Utukur' where he was residing. The petitioners never intended to purchase these lands and carry on cultivation. The purchase was solely with a view to realize the debt due to them. As they were situated far away from their place of residence, they sold away at the earliest opportunity. They had no other lands in Nayudupalem Village. These facts are established by the evidence of the declarants which is not challenged by way of cross-examintion. There is nothing to disbelieve this evidence. The sale under Exs.X-3 and X-4 cannot, in these circumstances, be deemed to be one made with a view to avoid or defeat the provisions of the law relating to the reduction of the celling on agricultural holdings. That apart, it is established by the evidence that the declarants have received consideration and put the purchasere in possession of these lands. The sales effected are true and genuine and therefore they cannot be disregarded under Sec. 7 (1) of the Act as held by a division bench of this Court (to which I am a party) in C. R. P. No. 1395/76 dated 23-12-1977. The extent covered by these two saledeeds has, therefore, to be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioners.