GEETA TIRUPATH REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PARDESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the declarant of C. C. No. P/2051/1955 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli and is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar in L. R. A. 77/1977. In this revision, the four points that are urged are;---- (1) That the lands in possession of the protected tenants in whose favour ownership has been transferred under S. 38-E should have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner and these lands are covered by S. Nos. 620, 344, 332 and 333. (2) That the lands given to the petitioners mother under the family settlement and declared by her in C. C. 2067/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli, and accepted by that Tribunal should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. (3) That "pote kharab" lands should be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner; and (4) That the petitioners son Surender Reddy was a major on the specified date and as such the declaration C. C. 2040/75, filed by him should be received.

(2.) Point No. 1 :---- In respect of the lands covered by s. No. 620, a certificate under S. 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 has been issued and the ownership of the lands stood transferred to the protected tenant. The certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act is conclusive proof of that fact, as laid down in the section. So, this land cannot be included in the holding of the petitioner.

(3.) The fact that such a certificate was issued in respect of the land covered by S. No. 344 also is evidenced by the Faisal Patti for the year 1975-76. Faisal Patti is a public document and that bears the endorsement of mutation of patta made by the competent revenue authority during the course of the Jamabandi proceedings a certified copy of which is produced in this Court. The name of the person in whose favour a certificate under S. 38-E of the Act is issued is recorded as the pattedar and the name of the former Pattedar is deleted. This conclusively establishes that the land covered by S. No. 344 was not owned by the petitioners family.