Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
N. Raghuma Reddy (Died) And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 30 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)ALD310, 1998(4)ALT95
ORDER
1. These two civil revision petitions, CRP No.3279 of 1993 and CRP No.4116 of 1994 relate to same subject-matter, that is to say, the lands covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973-(for short 'the Act'). Hence, these two CRPs are clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. CRP No.3279 of 1993 is directed against the order dated 20-8-1993 passed in LRA No.41 of 1992 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District whereas CRP No.4116 of 1994 is directed against the order dated 20-8-1993 passed in LRA No.22 of 1992 on the file of the aforementioned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. LRA No.41 of 1992 as well as LRA No.22 of 1992 were disposed of by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, R.R. District by a common order.
3. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of these CRPs. be noted briefly as under:
The father of the petitioners, namely, one N. Raghuma Reddy was head of the joint family consisting himself and the petitioners 2 to 4 in CRP No.3279 of 1993. After the Act came into force, the said Raghuma Reddy filed declarations on behalf of the joint family under the provisions of the Act claiming a separate holding for himself and separate holdings to his three sons - petitioners 2 to 4. The declaration was filed both before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalwakurthy in Mahbubnagar District as well as Primary Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalwakurthy by its order dated 3-12-1976 as well as the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South by its order dated 15-12-1977 held that the 4th petitioner was a minor on the notified date and therefore he was not entitled to a separate standard holding and so holding, both the Primary Tribunals held that the joint family of Sri Raghuma Reddy held O.6631 standard holdings as excess. Being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalwakurthy, LRA No. 1783 of 1977 was preferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahbubnagar, whereas being aggrieved by the order made by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South dated 15-12-1977 in LRAs 24/78, 52/78 and 53/78 were preferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District. LRA No.1783 of 1977 was heard and disposed of by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahbubnagar by its order dated 19-6-1978. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the 4th petitioner was major on the notified date and therefore he was entitled to one separate standard holding and if one separate standard holding was allowed to the 4th petitioner, there would not be any excess land. This order made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahbubnagar became final in the absence of any challenge by the respondent - public authorities in the mode known to the law. After the disposal of LRA No. 1783/77 the appeals - LRA Nos.24/78, 52/78 and 53/78 were dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, R.R. District by a common order dated 21-7-1978. This common order made by the Ranga Reddy District Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal also became final in the absence of any challenge to the same by the petitioners. At this stage itself, it can be noted that according to the petitioners, they did not go before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, R.R. District and advance their arguments on merits inasmuch as by that time they had the order of the Mahbubnagar District Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, which was in their favour. The petitioners also stated that though the LRAT, R.R. Dist. disposed of the appeals by its order dated 21-7-1978, for number of years the respondents did not take any step to take over possession of the alleged excess land in terms of the determination made by the LRAT, Hyderabad South till the year 1992, and when in the year 1992 the revenue authorities took steps to take over possession of the alleged excess land, the petitioners filed two applications before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South. In the first application, the petitioners requested the Land Reforms Tribunal to take the order of the Mahbubnagar District Land Reforms Tribunal dated 19-6-1978 on record and hold that the petitioners family do not hold any excess land. In the second application, the petitioners alternatively contended that of the lands included in the holdings of the joint family of Raghuma Reddy and petitioners 2 to 4, two lands with Sy.Nos.393 measuring 34 acres and Sy.No.394 measuring Ac. 12.34 gts. were wrongly included in the holding of the petitioners, and in fact those two lands were tenanted agricultural lands and they were in actual possession of the cultivating tenants on the notified date and therefore those two lands are required to be excluded from the holdings of the petitioners, and if those two lands are so excluded, there would not be any excess at all. The first application was rejected by the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal dated 27-3-1992 and the second application was rejected by order dated 6-3-1992. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-1992 preferred LRA No.41/92 and whereas being aggrieved by the order dated 6-3-1992, they preferred LRA No.21 of 1992 to the LRAT, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad. Both the appeals were dismissed by the LRAT, Ranga Reddy District by its common order dated 20-8-1993. Hence these two CRPs. assailing the validity of the common order dated 20-8-1993.
4. Sri L Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would reiterate the same contentions raised in the two applications out of which the two CRPs. arise. The learned Counsel would also contend that the order made by the LRAT, Mahbubnagar District dated 19-6-1978 has become final and the respondent authorities are bound by the same and therefore they are not entitled to take any steps to take over possession of the excess land as determined by the Primary Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South on an erroneous ground that the 4th petitioners was a minor on the notified date. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling would contend that the petitioners are bound by the order of the LRAT, R.R. District, dated, 21-7-1978 made in LRA Nos.24/78, 52/78 an 53/78 since the petitioners did not choose to assail the validity of the said order and that they cannot make any grievance at this stage saying that the finding recorded by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalwakurthy and the affirmed finding of the LRAT, R.R. District, are not correct.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do find that there are two orders which conflict with each other. The order passed by the LRAT, Mahbubnagar dated 19-6-1978 is in conflict with the order made by the LRAT, R.R. Dist dated 21-7-1978 in LRA Nos.24/78, 52/78 and 53/78 and both the orders have become final in the absence of any challenge to the same in appropriate legal proceedings by the affected parties. If these two conflicting orders are permitted to remain, the very object of the Act would be frustrated. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to give a quietus to the lis between the parties on merits and affirm the validity of one of the two orders passed by the two LRATs. invoking the suo motu power of superintendence and correction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I proceed to consider the lis between the petitioners and the respondent-public authorities on merits.
6. At the threshold it is necessary to note that if the 4th petitioner was held to be major on the notified date and if he is entitled to a separate standard holding, there will not be any controversy between the parties and that there will not be any excess land to be surrendered. Alternatively, assuming that the 4th petitioner was a minor on the notified date, but if 34 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.393 and Ac.12.34 gts. comprised in Sy.No.394 of Tulekalan village were actually in possession and cultivation of the cultivating tenants as on the notified date, and before that date those tenants were granted ownership certificates envisaged under Section 38-E of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 then, there will not be any excess. The petitioners specifically put forth these two contentions in their two applications out of which these two CRPs. arise. The respondent authorities have not contested the correctness of the two facts stated in the applications by filing counter. However, at the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling would maintain that the finding that the 4th petitioner was major on the notified date is incorrect, and equally there is no evidence to show that the aforementioned two lands were tenanted lands and they were in possession and cultivation of the cultivating tenants as on the notified date. The LRAT, Mahbubnagar in its order dated 19-6-1978, on the basis of the school leaving certificate of the 4th petitioner, recorded the finding that the 4th petitioner was a major on the notified date, his actual date of birth being 10-8-1956. Therefore, the finding recorded by the LRAT, Mahbubnagar relating to the age of the 4th petitioner basing on the school leaving certificate cannot be said to be perverse or grounded on inadmissible evidence.
7. The alternative contention raised by the petitioners is also tenable. In the impugned order itself, at page 6 it is stated by the appellate Tribunal that faisal patti for the year 1975-76 discloses that a certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of the lands in Sy.No.393 and 394 of Tulekalan village was issued to a third patty, obviously thereby meaning the tenants. At any rate, the respondents have not filed counter contesting this fact stated by the petitioners in their applications. Section 13 of the Act provides that a land or part thereof covered by Section 38-E of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 should be excluded from the holding of the owner. There is also no controversy that if these two lands are excluded from the holding of the petitioners, there would not be any excess.
8. The discussion supra makes it very clear that on merits the petitioners have made out a strong case that the joint family consisting of the deceased Raghuma Reddy and his three sons, namely, the petitioners 2 to 4 do not hold excess land. Therefore, the steps taken by the revenue authorities of Ranga Reddy District to recover the excess land as determined by the Primary Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South cannot be sustained in law. However, as pointed out supra, the order made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in LRA Nos.24/78, 52/ 78 and 53/78 remains unchallenged and unless this order is quashed the determination correctly made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahbubnagar cannot be given effect to. In that view of the matter, the Court invokes the suo motu power of correction and superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and quashes the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District dated 21-7-1978 passed in LRA Nos.24/78, 52/78 and 53/78. Consequently, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order in each of the civil revision petition is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.