BALAGANGADBARA TILAK Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent in these revision petitions filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, in which he claimed certain properties as his self-acquired properties. The petitioners herein, who are two of his brothers, raised an objection with regard to certain properties, stating that they were joint family properties. The objection was overruled by the Land Reforms Tribunal. The declarant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Even before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners herein reiterated their contention that several items were joint family properties, This contention was negatived. It appears that the appeal was posted for hearing on 20-4-77, but the Ad?o- cate for the petitioners herein wrongly noted the date as 10-5-77 and did not appear on that day. Hence, the appeal was disposed of in the absence of the Advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners therefore applied for setting aside the order in the Appeal and re-hearing the same. The appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable. The petitioners herein have preferred C.R.P. No. 1232 of 1977 against the order in the main Appeal and C.R.P. No. 1233 of 1977 against the order dismissing the petition to re-hear the Appeal.

(2.) The two grounds on which the Appellate Tribunal held that the petition to re-hear the Appeal was not maintainable are: (i) that there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules enabling the Appellate Tribunal to re-hear the appeal and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable; and (ii) that it is only the appellant that has to apply for setting aside the order made in the appeal to re-bear the same and the petitioners, who are respondents in the appeal, are not entitled to do so.

(3.) There is no decision of this Court on these two points arising under the Act. These questions are likely to arise frequently. I am of the view therefore this matter should be placed before a Division bench. As the matter is one arising under Act I of 1973, these two CR. Ps. may be posted before the Division Bench at an early date.