MERLA VEERANNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition under Sec. 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry, in L.R.A No. 128 of 1976 by which the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, in C.C.No. 1639/KDA/1975 dated 27-12-1975 was confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a declaration on behalf of himself and his wife Merla Suryanarayanamba. In enclosure til of the declaration, he declared that he had alienated (i) an extent of Ac. 8-08 cents in S.No. 64 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 10-10-1971, Ex.P. 9 (ii) an extent of Ac. 9.00 in S.No. 67 for a sum of Rs. 36.000/- under registered sale deed dt. 16-10-1971 Ex.P. 17, (iii) an extent of Ac. 3-58 cents in S.No. 63 for a sum of Rs. 17,500/- under a registered sale deed dated 27-10-1971 Ex.P. 23, and (iv) an extent of Ac. 2-54 cents in S.No, 67, for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 10-4-1972 Ex.P. 33. He also declared that his wife had sold an extent of Ac. 19-90 cents in S.Nos. 66/1, 66/2, 66/4, 67/1, 67/2, 67/3, 65 and 68/1 for a consideration of Rs. 99,000,'- under three separate registered sale deeds, Ex.P, 4, P.7 and P.15 dated 29-10-1971. The petitioner claimed that the extents covered by these sale deeds should be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner's family unit. He stated that the sales under Exs. P.4, P.7 and P.15 were in pursuance of the contracts for sale of the year 1970 under which part consideration was paid and possession was delivered. The petitioner examined himself and all the vendees except the vendee under Ex. P.9. The vendees also filed land revenue receipts in support of their claim that the lands were purchased by them.

(3.) The original Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence held that these several transactions of sale effected by the declarant and his wife, though evidenced by registered documents, are not bona fide. In that view, it rejected the declarant's claim that they should be excluded from his holding and accordingly determined the petitioner's holding at 3.2736 standard holdings, The petitioner's family unit is entitled to only one standard holding. He accordingly determined the declarant as holding 2.2736 standard holdings of land, equivalent to Ac. 90-94 cents of 'H' class in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found ''that the declarant and his wife have sold lands and executed the sale deeds to such persons who are not having much land, with an intention to see that their holding is reduced to the minimum possible extent," It accordingly held that "the sales effected by the declarant and his wife were only in anticipation of and with a view to avoid the provisions of the land ceiling Act" and disregarded the sales for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the declarant and affirmed the order of the original Tribunal.