MITHCNDER REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act of 1971 to revise the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A. No. 1428 of 1977 confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal determining that the petitioner was holding an excess of O. 4727 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area. The following two contentions were raised before the Appellate Tribunal:

(2.) The Appellate Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence, held on point No. (i) that the lands were registered in the name of the petitioner and that there was no evidence to show that any partition took place between the petitioner and his uncle in which the lands fell to the share of his uncle and that no steps were taken to get the lands mutated in the name of his uncle. Pahahis were not filed to show that the uncle was in possession of the lands alleged to'have fallen "to his share. No objection was raised to the verification report. Only an affidavit was filed by the uncle, Narasimha Reddy; but the averments were not substantiated by any independent evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner and held that the lands covered by S. No. 213 cannot be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal on a proper appreciation of the relevant evidence on record and there are no grounds for interfering with the same in revision.

(3.) In support of the second contention relating to the alienations, the petitioner relied upon some unregistered agreements of sale and cist receipts filed as Exs. A-l to A-84. The petitioner filed an affidavit setting out the Sands alleged to have been sold to different persons. In this affidavit, neither the years of the sale nor the amounts for which they were sold were mentioned. The Appellate Tribunal observed that this goes to show that the petitioner was not sure of the particulars of the sale transactions and that.it militiated -against the truthfulness of the alleged sales. The Appellate Tribunal then considered the agreements of sale and cist receipts and found that the balance of sale consideration due under each of the agreements of sale was not paid even by the date of the enquiry before the Tribunal and that no explanation was given as to why the sale consideration amounts were not paid, and registered sale deeds executed in favour of the alleged vendees. All these agreements were written by the petitioner himself and attested by his paternal uncle, Narasimha Reddy, and by another person who did not file any affidavit. The petitioner's uncle filed several affidavits swearing to the execution of the agreements of sale. Whatever evidence was adduced by the petitioner was found to be interested and the Appellate Tribunal was not prepared to accept the same. The agreement of sale and cist receipts, most of which are on scraps of paper, were found to be suspicious and fabricated by the petitioner with a view of defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act.