ADIMULAM SRIRAMULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") a short question as to whether cross objections can be filed in the appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, arises for consideration. The question arises this way. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Rajahmundry determined in C.C.No. 1819/75 that the petitioner's family unit was not holding any lands in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date. The Land Reforms Tribunal excluded the lands gifted by the petitioner in favour of his daughter Nagamani, but rejected some of the sales set up by the petitioner. Inasmuch as the Land Reforms Tribunal found that the petitioner was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling area, he did not prefer any appeal in respect of the findings recorded against him. The State, however, preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry challenging the findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal accepting the gift in favour of the petitioner's daughter and other findings recorded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred cross objections under Order 41, Rule 22 (1) CPC. read with rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') challenging the findings recorded against him by the Land Reforms Tribunal.

(2.) A Preliminary objection was raised by the Government Pleade before the Appellate Tribunal that cross objections were not maintainable, as the Act or the Rules made thereunder do not expressly provide for filing of cross objections before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this preliminary objection and held that the cross objections were not maintainable. Hence the revision petition.

(3.) In coming to the conclusion that the cross objections were not maintainable, the Appellate Tribunal relied upon three decisions in Eluru Elec. Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Satyam (i) 1967(2) An.W.R. 344, M.M. & -G. Insurance Co. vs. K. Subbareddy (2) (AIR 1974 A.P. 310), and Rajagopala vs. Hindu Rel. End. Board (FB) (3) (AIR 1934 Madras 102 (2)