STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. DAGGU MADHVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Andhra pradesh represented by the District collector, Warangal, filed the present civil revision petition under Section 21 of the a. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience, being aggrieved of an order made in LRA No. 23 of 1990 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, warangal. The first respondent Daggu madhava Rao, who was the appellant in the said LRA No. 23 of 1990 having died during the pendency of the civil revision petition, the legal representatives -Respondents 3 and 4 were brought on record by order dated 26. 12. 2003 made in cmp No. 21178 of 2002.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader for Arbitration had taken this Court through the reasoning adopted by the Land reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal while allowing the appeal setting aside the order of the Primary Tribunal so far as it relates to Acs. 4. 01 guntas of land comprised in new S. No. 274 (old S. No. 368) of Parkal village, and would contend that the same cannot be sustained for the reason that the appellant being a third party objector having not raised such objections, if any, in pursuance of the publication made under form V11i of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'rules' for the purpose of convenience) cannot be permitted to raise such objections by way of an appeal straight away and this procedure adopted by the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal itself being not in accordance with law, the order under challenge in the present civil revision petition is to be set aside by this revisional Court. The learned Counsel also would maintain that there is some material available on record to the effect that the third party had knowledge of the proceedings, but, however, had not chosen to raise objections at the appropriate stage. The Counsel also would point out that the observations made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal relating to the non-giving of notices to the persons affected or persons in possession calling for objections by the Primary Tribunal also cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that there is no acceptable evidence to the effect that the tenants had been in possession of the land in question as on 1. 1. 1975. Hence the counsel would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in particular and also the relevant rules, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

(3.) ON the contrary, Sri V. Manohar rao, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that the facts are not in controversy, the technical objection which is being taken by the revision petitioner also cannot be sustained for the reason that the procedure contemplated relating to the issuance of notices to the affected parties or the parties in actual possession itself had not been followed. When that being so, the appellant in LRA No. 23 of 1990 aforesaid had chosen the proper procedure of filing an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal and inasmuch as the relevant facts not being in dispute after recording findings the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that these lands to be excluded and, accordingly, so far as it relates to an extent of Acs. 4. 01 guntas of land in new S. No. 274 (old S. No. 368) of Parkal village is concerned, the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion ordering exclusion of the said land from the holding of the declarant. The learned Counsel also pointed out to exs. A-1, certified copy of certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Ex. A-2 and ex. A-3 pahani patrikas and would maintain that in the light of these documents which had been placed before the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Warangal, the order under challenge cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to Section 10 (5) of the Act and Section 13 of the Act as well and would maintain that in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the ground of non-compliance of raising objections to the notice under Form VIII may not seriously alter the situation and even otherwise at this distant point of time, even if an order of remand to be made, to follow the procedure, the same would be a futile exercise in the light of clear evidence of Exs. Al, A2 and A3 which had been placed before the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.