RUDRARAJU BHIMA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973. First, it is sought to be contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act as it is not a Court. But on further consideration, the learned counsel submitted that he is not pressing this point. Hence, it is not necessary to go into the said question.

(2.) THE learned Counsel raised, however, another contention namely, that the authorised Officer is not entitled to prefer an appeal on behalf of the State Government. THE learned Counsel submits that under Rule 15 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Rules, 1974, an appeal could be presented only by the aggrieved party or by an authorised agent and that the Government cannot be represented by the Authorised Officer. But I do not find any merit in this submission. THE main Act itself does not contain any provisions defining an authorised agent or the person who should prefer an appeal. But under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules,1975 Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that a copy of the declaration shall be furnished by the Tribunal to the Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, provides that a copy of the report on its receipt by the Tribunal shall be furnished to the declarant and also the Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. Seb-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 15 read as follows:-