KOLLUR LAKSHMI KOTESWARARAO Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1975 (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act) (hereinafter called as the State Act) is once again under attack

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of one late Venkatappaiah who died on 20-7-78. The petitioners claim which was accepted by the Primary Tribunal of Land Reforms. Gurazala in CC No. 868/PLD/75 dated 3-5-1977 was that his adoption to late Venkatappaih took place on 12-8-1956 and that he was entitled to be treated as a major son for the purposes of the aforesaid Act. On the basis of those allegations as accepted by the Primary Tribunal. the petitioner was allowed to keep one unit as a major son in a total extent or Ac. 64-46 cents belonging to late Venkatappaiah But the Appellate Tribunal reversed this view of the Primary Tribunal and held that the petitioners alleged adoption should he ignored for the purposes of the Land Reforms Act. This the Tribunal has power to do under Section 7 of the aforesaid State Act Again that order Of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a statutory revision to this court and last it. Now, the petitioner started this round of litigation alleging that Section 7 of the aforesaid State Act relating to adoptions is repugnant to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 (Union Act No. 78 of 1856).

(3.) What the petitioner says is that the Union Law at Adoptions and Maintenance which is a Parliamentary enactment Ls inconsistent with and therefore it should prevail over the State Act. The legal effects of a valid adoption and the presumptions and the proof there of as provided for under the provisions of the Union Law are all rendered ineffective according to the petitioner, by reason of Section 7 of the State Act. The petitioner, therefore, argues that Section 7 of the State Act, should be treated as invalid . For the purposes of this judgment, we assume that there is inconsistency in the popular sense between the provisions of the State Act and the Union Act. But even so, we hold no situation repugnancy known to Constitution Law is created rendering the State Invalid .Our reasons are as follows: