MANYAM DEVIKARANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions-one filed by the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and the other filed by the State are directed against the self same order dated 28-11-1994 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada. Hence, they can be disposed of together.

(2.) One Manyam Viswanadha Rao filed a declaration under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) in respect of his holding. The Land Reforms Tribunal originally passed an order under Section 9 of the Act on 4-8-1976 determining that the family unit of Viswanadha Rao holds land equivalent to 1.4723 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date. The matter was carried in appeal to the appellate Tribunal in LRA No.976 of 1996 and revision to the High Court in CRP No.2099 of 1983. After disposal of the revision by the High Court on 2-7-1987 Special Leave Petition No.6943 of 1988 was filed in the Supreme Court which was dismissed. After disposal of the above proceedings, the Land Reforms Tribunal issued a notice in Form No.6 on 12-8-1993 calling upon the legal representatives of the deceased declarant to surrender land to the extent of 1.4123 standard holding, which was found to be the surplus land held by them, within fifteen days. Questioning the said notice, the wife and son of the declarant filed LRA No.137 of 1993 before the Appellate Tribunal. Three points were raised before the Appellate Tribunal namely, (1) issuing a Notice under Form No.6 without issuing a revised order under Section 9 of the Act is bad; (2) classification of certain lands in Dosakayalapadu, Madhurapudi and Torredu is wrong and the said lands ought to have been classified as dry lands and not as wet lands and (3) an extent of Ac.20.67 cents of and in Pandavulapalli village is liable to be excluded from computation on the ground that it is not agricultural land and same is covered by quarry.

(3.) So far as the first point is concerned the Appellate Tribunal observed that after disposal of the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court no consequential order under Section 9 of the Act appears to have been passed and the impugned notice was issued on the basis of the order dated 8-9-1978 and no schedule is attached to the impugned notice. The appellate Tribunal felt that in the absence of the schedule in the prescribed form, the appellants would be at a disadvantage as the surplus held by the family varied from time to time. The Appellate Tribunal therefore directed the Primary Tribunal to issue a revised order under Section 9 of the Act enclosing the schedule.