PALUR RAMAIAH Vs. POTTA VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur vacating the temporary injunction pending the suit. The injunction has been vacated mainly on the ground that granting of such injunction is prohibited by section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The correctness of that view is challenged herein. It is necessary to state a few facts for a proper appreciation of the question arising herein.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed a declaration of their holding under section 8 of the Act. In the declaration they stated that the five items of land concerned herein, with a total extent of Ac. 63-07 cents have been sold by them to plaintiffs 1 to 7 herein, under an agreement of sale, dated 29th November, 1971 for a consideration of Rs. 45,000. During the course of enquiry before the Land Reforms Tribunal, the 5th plaintiff Was also examined in support of the said contention. The Tribunal, however, rejected the contention and included the five items in question in the holding of defendants 1 to 3. No appeal was filed against that order. Thereafter, proceedings were taken under section 10 of the Act for surrender of the excess lands. In the list of lands proposed to be surrendered, filed by defendants 1 to 3, the five items concerned herein were also included. Though the said list was published according to law, none of the plaintiffs filed objections thereto. Accordingly, the surrender as proposed by defendants 1 to 3 was accepted, and it became final. Thereafter, orders were communicated to the Revenue authorities for taking possession of the lands surrendered. Accordingly, it is stated, the possession was taken on 26th March, 1977, Subsequently, by orders dated 1st July, 1977 these lands were allotted to defendants 4 to 25 who are landless poor persons.

(3.) When the plaintiffs were served with orders to vacate the lands, they filed an objection-petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal, which was rejected by it. On appeal being filed by the plaintiffs, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for enquiry and orders. It is stated by the appellants that, at this stage, the Tribunal issued a notice to defendants 1 to 3, calling upon them to surrender some other land instead of the lands concerned herein. Against the said order, defendants 1 to 3 filed C. R. P. No. 2447 of 78, contending that since the surrender proposed by them has been accepted by the authorities according to law and has become final, the same cannot be re-opened at this stage. They have obtained stay of all further proceedings in that behalf.