ARAVALA APPALASWAMY NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Aravala Ramanna filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Srikakulam, on 5th April, 1975 under section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') He declared his total holding to be Ac, 54-11 cents. He had no wife nor had he any sons. He had only a daughter, Sitamma. He executed a registered will on 16th July, 1975 conveying his entire property of Ac. 54-11 cents after his death, to Aravala Appalaswamy Naidu and Aravala Chandramathi. He conveyed Ac. 13-21 cents to Appalaswamy Naidu and Ac. 40-90 cents to Chandramathi. He died on 16th November, 1975. The declaration filed by him was numbered as L. C. C. No. 1139 of 1975. After his death, Appalaswamy Naidu and Chandramathi filed declarations on 9th April, 1976 under section 18 of the Act on the ground that they acquired the properties as legatees of Aravala Ramanna. They were numbered as L. C. C. Nos. 1217 and 1218 of 1975. All the three declarations were clubbed together and enquired into in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Land Reforms Tribunal by its order dated 9th September, 1976 found that Aravala Ramanna was holding an excess of land equivalent to 0.9179 standard holding on 1st January, 1975, the relevant date and, therefore, the legatees under the will, after the death of Ramanna, were liable to surrender 0.9179 standard holding in the proportions bequeathed to them under the will. Accordingly the Land Reforms Tribunal held that Appalaswamy Naidu and Chandramathi were liable to surrender an excess of land equivalent to 0.2241 and 0.6938 standard holdings respectively. Aggrieved against the said order, Appalaswamy Naidu and Chandramathi preferred appeals L. R. A. Nos. 361 and 366 of 1977 respectively before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam.

(2.) The main contention before the Appellate Tribunal was that the computation of the land as it stood under the bequest of Aravala Ramanna in the hands of Appalaswamy Naidu and Chandramathi alone, had to be done and that the computation of the total holding of Aravala Ramanna, a dead person for fixing the ceiling area was illegal. It was contended that the declaration filed by Aravala Ramanna had abated on his death on 16th November, 1975 and that the Land Reforms Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any order thereafter against a dead person. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention and dismissed the appeals. The Appellate Tribunal held that the ceiling area had to be computed only on the basis of the holding of an individual on 1st January, 1975 as per section 8 of Act. Since Ramanna was alive on 1st January, 1975 it was held that his holding was rightly computed and his subsequent death during the pendency of of the declaration was of no consequence. These two revision petitions are now preferred by Appalaswamy Naidu and Chandramathi.

(3.) The facts are not in dispute. It is common ground that Aravala Ramanna died on 16th November, 1975 during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal, after executing a registered will on 16th July, 1975 in favour of the petitioners. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed an order on 9th September, 1976 after the death of Aravala Ramanna holding that he held an extent of land equivalent to 0. 9179 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the declaration filed by Aravala Ramanna and taken on file and numbered as L. C. C. No.1139 of 1975 by the Land Reforms Tribunal abated on the death of Aravala Ramanna on 16th November, 1975 and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any order thereafter against a dead person. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, attempted to uphold the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that Ramanna was alive on 1st January, 1975 and therefore his ceiling area as on 1st January, 1975 was rightly determined, and that in any event, the will dated 16th July, of 1975 was hit by the provisions section 7 of the Act.