P PRIYA ROHINAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the view I am taking on the main contention raised by the petitioner that Priya Janakiramayya was a lunatic on the date when he filed the declaration and continues to be so, I deem it unnecessary to go into the other questions that are raised in these two revision petitions directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in L.R.A. Nos. 420 and 468 of 1976.

(2.) Both the revision petitions arise out of a declaration filed by Priya Janakiramayya, the petitioner in CR.P. No 2709/78. He is the husband of the petitioner in C.R P. No. 1618/77. Priya Janakiramayya filed a declaration C.C. No. 216/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Tekkali, on behalf of his family unit consisting of himself, his wife Robinamma, his son Krishna Rao, whom he described as aged 19 years, another son Narasinga Rao aged 18 years and a minor daughter by name Indiramma. The contention of the petitioner herein is that Krishna Rao was a major and not a minor on the specified date and therefore he is entitled to one ceiling area, and that certain lands are dry lands and not wet lands. The original Tribunal held that Krishna Rao was a minor aged 17 years and not 19 years as claimed by the declarant. It however accepted the claim of the declarant that the lands bearing S. Nos. 95/1, 95/3 and 300 were dry lands and not coconut groves. The Government, preferred an appeal against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal impleading only Priya Janakiramayya as respondent. It may be noted at this stage that even before the Land Reforms Tribunal, it was represented that Janakiramayya was a lunatic from eight years prior to 1-1-1975. His wife Rohinamma stated before the Tribunal that her husband was a lunatic for over eight years and she also subsequently filed an application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. She accordingly filed an appeal L.R.A. No. 420/76. Notwithstanding the above, the Government did not choose to implead her as party respondent or as a guardian of her lunatic husband in the appeal preferred by it. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Government and dismissed the appeal preferred by Rohinamma by a common order, which forms the subject-matter of these two revision petitions.

(3.) As already observed by me, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of these revision petitions. Having regard to the finding of the Land Reforms Tribunal, it is not in dispute even before this Court that Priya Janakiramayya, the declarant, was a lunatic on the date when be filed the declaration and he continues to be a lunatic even to this date.