GORLA SURYANARAYANA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question but a question of frequent occurence and considerable general interest and importance that arises in this case 'is Whether illegitimate minor children of an individual fall within the definition of'family unit' under Section 3(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, Act 1 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Before embarking on a consideration of the question, the undisputed facts that are essential for a proper appreciation of the problem may be set out: The petitioner, Gorla Suryanarayana Naidu, filed a declaration under Section 8(1) of the Act before the 'Land Reforms Tribunal, Sirkakulam. The petitioner in his declaration declared that the family unit consisted of himself, his wife and five minor daughters and three minor sons. The declaration was taken on file by the Land Reforms Tribunal as L.C.C.No. 760/CPP)75,.The Tribunal after following the prescribed procedure for publication and verification of the declaration andenquiry as contemplated by the Act, held that the petitioner had included 5 children 3 minor sons and 2 unmarried daughters born to Saraswathamma in his declaration, that Saraswathamma was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that the 5 illegitimate children cannot be treated to be the members of the family unit' under Sec. 3(f) of the Act. Accordingly the five children included in the family unit of the petitioner were deleted. The Tribunal determined that the petitioner held a total extent of 2.7880 standard holdings, that the family unit of the petitioner i.e. himself his wife and 3 legitimate children were entitled to one standard holding. Accordingly 1.7880 standard holdings were found to be in excess of the ceiling area which the petitioner was liable to surrender. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal also held that the 5 illegiti- mate children of Saraswathamma were not entitled to be included in the family unit of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The answer to the question involved in the case must necessarily be found from the definition of the "family unit" in Sec 3(f) of the Act which reads: 3(f) 'family unit' means-