SHANBU PANDYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition under section 21 of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act filed by the declarant is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahaboobnagar in L.R.A. No. 53 of 1976.

(2.) The petitioner's family consists of himself, his wife, his minor son and two minor daughters. According to him his father died after 1956 and his mother is alive. He inter aliea pleaded that his mother had a 1/4th snare in the property and the same has to be excluded in computing his holding. The Land Reforms Tribunal held that the petitioner's father died prior to 1956 and therefore his mother had no share in the property. It did not give any finding as to in which year the petitioners father died. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, however, reversed that finding and held that the petitioner's father died after 1956 that is after the Hindu Succession Act came into force. On that basis the Appellate Tribunal found the petitioner's mother entitled to 1/4th share in the properties. The holding of the petitioner's family referred to above was found to be comprised of Ac. 86-16 cents which is equivalent to 1.6891 standard holdings. The petitioner's mother's 1/4th share was accordingly determined at 0.4223 standard holding and the holding of the petitioner's family unit was found to be 1.2668 standard holdings. This the petitioner's family unit was found to be holding 0.2668 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area.

(3.) It is now contended by the petitioner that his mother, who is an individual, was holding only 0.4223 standard holding which is less than one ceiling area to which she is entitled and the petitioner who is a member of the family unit, holds only half of the area held by the family unit, that is, half of 1. 2668 standard holding which comes to 0.6334 standard holding. Hence the petitioner's mother was entitled to hold a further extent of 0.3666 standard holding from out of the petitioner's holding. As the excess land held by the family unit of which the petitioner is a major son is 0.2668, the family unit is not liable to surrender any land in view of section 4-A of the Amendment Act.