P PARAMESWAR YADAV Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common points arise in these two revision petitions and, therefore,they could be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) These two revision petitions are preferred against an order madeby the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). The declarants, respondents 2 to 4 herein, filed their declarations under Section 8 of the Act and after due determination under Section 9 when it was declared that they held in excess of ceiling area, certain lands owned by them situated at Nagireddipalli, Uangareddy district were sought to be surrendered. Thereupon, objections were raised by the petitioners herein on the ground that they have purchased those lands under an agreement of sale entered into between the declarants and themselves. The objections were rejected by the primary tribual and on appeal being dismissed, these revision petitions have been preferred.

(3.) The contentions advanced in this behalf by the petitioners are :(1) The declarants are estopped from surrendering towards excess of their holdings from out of the land at Nagireddipalli regarding which there is an agreement of sale entered into between the parties. (2) The price that was paid at the time of agreement of sale for the land, which is sought to be surrendered by the declarants, was Rs.800/- per acre, whereas the amount that has to be now paid by the declarants is only Rs. 500/- per acre ; and in case the declarants surrender the said land and the same is accepted, it would cause hardship and pecuniary loss to the petitioners (3) The said land at Nagireddipalli was originally purchased in the name of seven persons, but later the same was treated as undivided. Therefore, if it is not allowed to be undivided, they are entitled to surrender only 136 acres. (4) Mrs. N.T. Rama Rao's land is included in the joint family property which is already divided. Hence, the same is wrong. (5) The family of Sri N.T. Rama Rao has been treated as joint family and so, S. Nos. 32 and 40 have been erroneously accepted towards surrender. (6) There is no power of review under Section 10 (5) (a) (ii), as earlier a decision was taken not to accept the surrender, which has been later reviewed and so, it is erroneous. (7) On some of the lands so surrendered, there are structures and knowingly the same have been surrendered, which will be a burden on the exchequer, as the compensation which has to be paid will be very heavy. (8) Under Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, the land held by a person and which is under the personal cultivation, cannot be acquired if it is within the ceiling limit applicable. Therefore, the acceptance of the lands so surrendered is unconstitutional.