T BANGARU RAJU Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LRT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order of the Primary Tribunal and over-ruling the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the acceptance of the surrender of certain lands made by respondents 2 and 3 under the provisions of the Act. Respondents 2 and 3, who are the declarants in L.C.C.Nos. 1269,1275,1276 of 1275 were found to be holding excess land under the Act. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal finally determining the surplus land held by them, the declarants i.e., respondents 2 and 3 proposed to surrender a total extent of Acs. 105.56 cents of land comprised in the three villages. The said lands proposed to be surrendered by the declarants were duly inspected by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10-11-1992 and after such inspection the Revenue Divisional Officer recommended that a total extent of Acs. 97.91 cents out of the lands proposed to be surrendered are suitable for taking possession. Form VIII was accordingly published in the concerned villages by beat of torn torn as well as in the Notice Board of the M.R.O's. office, Cheepurupalli on 12-1-1993 calling for objections, if any, from interested parties. Since no objections have been received within the stipulated time of 15 days, orders under Section 10(3) of the Act have been issued on 29-1-1993 approving the surrender of the said lands and Form IX was also issued on the same day authorising the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cheepurupalli, to take possession of the above lands. Thereafter on 1-2-1993, the petitioners herein, who are third parties, put in an objection petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming that they have purchased extents totalling Acs. 15.59 cents out of the surrendered lands in the year 1988 under registered sale deeds from one Chelikani Sitaramaiah Swamy and objected to the acceptance of the surrender of the said extent of Acs. 15.59 cents by the declarants i.e., respondents 2 and 3 herein. The petitioners further contended that the lands purchased by them were in their absolute possession and enjoyment and as such they could not have been surrendered by the declarants who were never in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. The Primary Tribunal, by its order dated 16-3-1994, held that the lands in question i.e., the extent of Acs. 15.59 cents are under the absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and as such the same could not be surrendered by the declarants and accordingly the Tribunal directed that the said land should be deleted from the earlier order dated 29-1-1993 passed under Section 10(3) of the Act. The Primary Tribunal also directed the declarants to surrender alternate lands in lieu of the said lands measuring Acs. 15.59 cents within 15 days from the date of the said order failing which action will be taken to select lands sno motu as per rules.

(2.) Questioning the said order of the Primary Tribunal Respondents 2 and 3 filed L.R.A.No. 2 of 1994. The Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 22-7-1996 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the Primary Tribunal, holding that the petitioners have no right to object to the surrender of the said lands by respondents 2 and 3 since the said lands were not included in the declaration of the petitioners' vendor. The Appellate Tribunal also held that since the vendor of the petitioners never included these lands in his declaration, the question of any dispute with regard to the title to the said lands did not arise and hence the objection raised by the petitioners for the surrender of the said lands by respondents 2 and 3 herein is unsustainable under law. Hence this revision by the petitioners.

(3.) Sri P. Sitarama Raju, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners tried to assail the order of the Appellate Tribunal by contending that the petitioners have purchased the lands in question from one Chelikani Sitarama Swamy under four registered sale deeds dated 8-2-1988, 9-2-1988,12-2-1988 and 12-2-1988, that the sales were duly effected by their vendor after his holding was finally determined as per the provisions of the Act and after he surrendered the excess land held by him, that the said sale deeds are, therefore, valid and saved by Section 17 of the Act, that the petitioners' vendor in his turn purchased these lands in 1956 from one Sundararamaiah who got a patta for these lands in 1948 from Vizianagaram estate, that respondents 2 and 3 clandestinely included these lands in their holdings and purported to surrender these lands towards the excess land held by them without any manner of right, that the Primary Tribunal was perfectly justified in upholding the objection raised by the petitioners and that the Appellate Tribunal grossly erred in setting aside the order of the Primary Tribunal ignoring the large volume of documentary evidence produced by the petitioners in support of their case. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the copies of the following documents which are supplied by him in the material papers filed in this C.R.P., namely, (1) Patta bearing No. 184 granted to the petitioners' vendor's vendor i.e., P. Sundararamaiah on 6-10-1948, (2) sale deed by Sundararamaiah in favour of the petitioners' vendor i.e., C. Seetharamaiah Swamy on 15-12-1956, (3) patta particulars of Sundararamaiah, (4) proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 10-2-1988 wherein the Mandal Revenue Officer held that both parties (the petitioners' vendor and respondents 2 and 3) were unable to establish their title and they are advised to establish their rights before the settlement Court, (5) four registered sale deeds obtained by the petitioners from C. Sitaramaiah Swamy in 1988, (6) pattadar pass-books issued in favour of the petitioners, (7) land-ownership title deeds granted by the Government to the petitioners, (8) land revenue receipts evidencing payment of land revenue by the petitioners from 1988 to 1992 and (9) petition filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Sub- divisional Magistrate-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram.