TIPPA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahaboobnagar in L R. A. No. 370 of 1976. The relevant facts are as follows: The natural family of the 1st petitioner consists of the petitioner, his two wives, one major son and two minor sons. The total extent of the land held by the natural family is determined as 2.8444 standard holdings. It appears that a partition was entered into by the 1st petitioner and his major son and minor sons on 29th December, 1970 undera registered partition deed. According to this partition deed the major son was allotted land which comes to 0.8872 standard holding. The Appellate Tribunal held that the major son's share which comes to 0.8872 standard holding should be excluded in determining the holding of the family unit consisting of the 1st petitioner, his two wives and two minor sons, and accordingly determined the extent of the holding held by the family unit of the 1st petitioner, his two minor sons and two wives at 1.9572 standard holdings and the excess to be surrendered by the family unit was determined 0.9572 standard holding.

(2.) The first contention urged by Sri M. V. Bharathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the minor son who got divided from the family under the registered partition deed dated 29th December, 1970, should be excluded from the family unit and the lands which had fallen to his share under the said partition deed should be excluded in computing the holding of the 1st petitioner. But this contention is not tenable in view of the definition of family unit under section 3 (f) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act and in view of the decision in Bandi Krishnamurthy v. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Gudivada and the Bench decision of this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 1697 of 1977 and bath dated 24th February, 1978. Therefore the first contention is rejected.

(3.) The second contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the family consists of 6 members i.e., the 1st petitioner, his two wives, one major son and two minor sons and therefore, under section 4 (2) of the Act in fixing the ceiling area of the family unit an additional extent of 1/5th of one standard holding has to be allowed. But this contention is not tenable because under sub-section (2) of section 4 an additional extent of 1/5th standard holding for each additional member is allowed only where the number of members of the family unit as in excess of five members. The family unit is defined in section 3 (f) means an individual, his spouse or spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried daughters. Therefore the major son is not counted as member of the family unit as defined under the said section 4. Therefore, in determining the number of members of the family unit, the major son cannot be taken into consideration. If so it follows that the family unit of the 1st petitioner consisting of himself, his two wives and two minor sons does not exceed five members and therefore the 1st petitioner's family unit will be entitled to hold only one standard holding under section 4 (1) of the Act. The decision of the Tribunal below in this regard is therefore, correct.