Elamati Krishna Reddy and Others vs Mohd. Ahmed and Another

V.V.S. Rao, J.—All these revision petitions are filed u/s 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against a common order dated 10-10-1996 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-Second Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. All the CRPs shall stand disposed of by this common judgment in view of the common questions of fact and law arising therein.

One Mohammed Ahmed claiming to be the Pattedar of a large extent of Ac.737.37 guntas comprised in various survey numbers of Turkayemjal village filed a declaration under the Act through one Shri K.V.S. Sastry, the duly constituted G.P.A. of Mohammed Ahmed. After determining the excess land, the Land Reforms Tribunal ordered Mohammed Ahmed to surrender the land in excess of the ceiling limit. The matter was carried on in appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal for further enquiry. After further enquiry, the land Reforms Tribunal determined the excess holding of Mohammed Ahmed u/s 9 of the Act declaring that he is holding 8.9898 Standard Holdings in excess of the ceiling limit. The said order of the Tribunal dated 13-10-1977 was challenged by one of the claimants in L.R.A. 2443 of 1977. The same was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal on 20-5-1978. In the meanwhile other persons who claim the land and who desired that their lands be excluded from the holding of the pattedar filed L.R.A.Nos. 1 to 3 of 1991. These appeals were allowed and were remitted to the Primary Tribunal by setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 13-10-1977 by which the holding was determined at 8.9898 Standard Holdings. After remand, the matter went to the Land Reforms Tribunal, which issued notices to all the appellants in L.R.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 1991. All the appellants or persons claiming through them filed petitions justifying their claims. The three categories of persons who appeared before the Land Reforms Tribunal include protected tenants who had ownership Certificates u/s 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity ''the Tenancy Act''), those persons who had obtained certificates u/s 50-E of the Tenancy Act or those persons who claim to be in possession of the lands by virtue of unregistered documents as evidenced by the relevant entries in the Pahanies and Faisal pattis of the village of Turkayemjal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 29-9-1995 held that the lands in S.Nos. 523, 531 to 535 and 542 to an extent of Ac.25-30 Guntas are covered by the Certificates of Validation of Alienation and Transfers vide proceedings No. E/64/78, dated 10-4-1979 issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad (East) and accordingly ordered the extent of Ac.25-30 guntas to be deleted from the holding of the declarant in C.C. No. E/1801/1975. The Tribunal also ordered deletion of the lands covered by S. Nos. 500 to 503, 509,523, 538, 539/2, 548/2, 653/2, 656/2, 650/2, 657 and 659 for the reason that the persons claiming to be in possession of the lands in these survey numbers proved their adverse possession over the lands. It is interesting to note that some of the claimants who filed petitions before the Land Reforms Tribunal claim to have been purchased the lands from one Mehboob Begum as well as Rahamunnisa Begum or from the purchasers of Mehaboob Begum or Rahamunnisa Begum. The Primary Tribunal, however, has not recorded any finding on the question as to whether Mohamed Ahmed was the exclusive Pattedar of the lands in question or not. Be that as it may, all the petitioners herein who could not appear for one reason or the other before the Land Reforms Tribunal, after the matter was remanded, approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal praying to exclude and delete the lands in their possession from the holding of the declarant. They claimed the lands in various survey numbers and the details of the same are furnished by way of a statement by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, which is as under:

Sl. No. LRA No. Name of the Appellant CRP No. S. No. Extent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1/1996 Vaspari Agaiah, s/o. Eadaiah 1583/97 536 541 542 5-17 0-08 0-02

2/1996 Kari Janga Reddy, son of Raji Reddy 1696/97 508 509 541 5-00 5-00 15-00

3/1996 Marri Bal Reddy, son of Raji Reddy 3332/97 504 505 506 530 531 532 560 661 662 534 2-16 1-25 0-36 3-38 8-09 1-35 1-20 2-19 1-29 1-20

4/1996 Gutha Sathireddy s/o Sayanna 1582/97 536 537 657 3-11 112 0-25

5/1996 Marri Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra Reddy, s/o late M. Rajaiah @ Raji Reddy 1693/97 530 531 532 533 504 505 506 661 5-25 2-24 2-00 2-00 7-33 4-13 0-32 0-15

6/1996 Sama Venkat Reddy son of Poch Reddy 1578/97 546 547 548 10-24 7-38 0-29

7/1996 Elmati Pratap Reddy s/o. Sathi Reddy 1586/97 660 661 3-00 1-10

8/1996 Elamati Krishna Reddy son of Late Jangaiah 1577/97 661/C 657/B 658/B 657/D 658/D 4-25 0-25 2-27 0-20 1-27

13/1996 Gurram Yadi Reddy son of Malla Reddy 1593/97 540 3-34

Sl.No. LRA No Name of the Appellant CRP No. S.No. Extent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

14/1996 Nagam Ramiah, s/o. Venkaiah 1618/97 540 539 538 537 4-12 0-20 1-07 0-26

15/1996 Marri Janga Reddy@ Marri Chinna Janga Reddy son of Narayanareddy 1617/97 505 530 661 529 504 0-38 4-20 0-09 3-07 2-20

16/1996 Jakkidi Malla Reddy son of Bakka Reddy 694/97 657 658 0-32 1-13

17/1996 Marri Raji Reddy son of Narayana Reddy 1952/97 505 530 661 529 532 531 533 534 535 504 1-36 5-02 0-18 1-00 1-26 0-36 1-38 0-18 1-07 2-20

18/1996 Dasari Narayana Reddy son of D. Chandraiah 1698/97 508 509 523 529 659 660 3-00 4-00 3-00 4-00 3-22 4-00

10/1996 Marri Yadireddy son of Bal Reddy and others 1695/97 528 532 533 534 535 531 542 2-14 3-34 2-10 3-22 3-29 4-17 5-25

20/1996 Kavadipalli Laxma Reddy son of Ramaiah 1697/97 540 6-20

37/1996 Upperigudem Anjaiah @ Kandala Anjaiah son of late Mallaiah 1823/97 523 3-00

The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 10-12-1996 dismissed the Appeals holding that the Appellants did not place any documents in proof of the allegation that they are in possession of the property or that they obtained certificates u/s 38-E of the Tenancy Act. The Appellate Tribunal, on a point of law, held that a person by becoming merely a protected tenant and obtaining ownership certificate u/s 38-E of the Tenancy Act cannot get any right under the Land Reforms Act. This is erroneous. This Court in R. Jagadiswaraiah v. State of A.P., 1977 ALT 185 , 1978 APLJ 160 and Gade Suresh v. Government of A.P., 1977 (1) APLJ 112 has held that the determination of the holding of the tenants under the Land Reforms Act treating the tenant as the owner cannot be postponed merely because an ownership certificate u/s 38-E of the Tenancy Act is not obtained by the protected tenant. Apart from the erroneous conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal, the impugned order also suffers from improper exercise of power vested in it. It is incumbent on the appellate Tribunal to at least briefly refer to the contents of the documents placed by the appellants and record its findings but the same is missing in the impugned order. Further, there was no effective or noteworthy opposition to the appeal by the Government except the contention that as directed by the R.D.O. the possession of the excess land held by the declarant was taken on 20-11-1990. The appellate Tribunal was not right in giving undue importance to the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the possession was taken on 20-11-1990. A reading of Section 10 of the Act shows that immediately after determination of the excess holding u/s 9, a notice is to be given u/s 10(1) of the Act requiring a declarant to file a statement of the land to be surrendered. If the declarant fails to do so, even then the law contemplates that the excess land is "deemed to have been taken possession of by the Government''. In the light of the deeming provision u/s 10(3) of the Act, the appellate Court ought to have been more circumspect in giving due weight to the contention that possession was taken on 20-11-1990. In any event, as already noticed, the appeal filed by Mohammed Ahmed was remitted to the Land Reforms Tribunal for redetermination of the holding. LRA Nos. 1 to 3 which were filed by some of the persons claiming to be possessors of the lands were again allowed and remitted on 29-10-1992. This goes to show that when the matter was remitted by the learned Appellate Tribunal on 29-10-1992 the said Tribunal ignored the factum of the Government''s taking possession of the land in November, 1990.

For the above reasons, I must hold that the impugned order dated 10-10-1996 suffers from error of failure to exercise the jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the nature of disposal of these revision petitions should be remand to Appellate Tribunal. It is fairly submitted by Shri Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that relevant Faisal Pattis as well as validation certificates u/s 50-B of the Tenancy Act in respect of certain survey numbers were not placed before the Tribunal. It is therefore, proper to remit back the matters to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District with a direction to consider the appeals afresh after giving opportunity to all the appellants to produce the documents, other registered or unregistered deeds, certified copies of revenue records or validation certificates alleged to have been given u/s 50-B of the Tenancy Act. The Government shall also be at liberty to produce any additional documents if they so desire. The Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeals within a period of six weeks from today by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

In the result, the C.R.Ps. are allowed. The impugned order dated 10-10-1996 is set aside and the matters shall stand remitted to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar for fresh disposal in accordance with law.