NAGABHUSHANA RAO V Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question for our consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the land covered in a lease granted in favour of the 3rd party could be excluded from the declaration under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ' The Act').

(2.) . The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 18-7-1994 made in L.R.A.No. 94 of 1990 while dismissing the present petitioner's appeal observed that the lower Tribunal rightly did not keep reliance on the report of the Commissioner because no sanctity could be attributed to his report in respect of the lands of Panasapadu village and the alleged non-agricultural portions did not find place in the adangal or in the declaration and also because there was no evidence on the record to show as to when the alleged bore-shed was erected. The Tribunal also took into consideration that the electric motor would have been installed in the shed and electricity charges would have been paid and, therefore, the receipts for payment of electricity charges would have been the best evidence to establish that the bore-shed was in existence prior to 1-1-1975. The Court Commissioner was also not examined for as certaining how he opined that the alleged non-agricultural portions noticed by him were more than 25 years old. The appellate Tribunal, therefore, held that the lower Tribunal rightly did notplace reliance on the report of the Commissioner and rightly refused to exclude the alleged non-agricultural portions from the holding of the declarant.

(3.) . According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since no objections were taken against the Commissioner's report, it was binding on all concerned. By relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in S.R.V.V.V.G.K.Y. Bahadur vs. Spl. Tahsildar the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that even 'tank' was not covered within the definition of 'land' under Section 30) of the Act and on that analogy the cattle shed was not liable to be included in the declaration, but when the learned Counsel for the petitioner was questioned how none of these reasons were shown in the Declaration for claiming exemption, the submission was that through over-sight it was not shown. In my opinion, this explanation does not render any satisfaction and cannot be accepted as a legally sustainable ground.