HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1580 of 1994 Order: This revision is directed against the orders dated 18.06.1993 passed in LRA No.2 of 1990 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nalgonda. The brief facts of the case are as follows. One Jeedimatla Narsamma is the wife of Jeedimatla Yellaiah. They had two sons namely Jeedimatla Ram Reddy and Lakshma Reddy and one daughter. Jeedimatla Venkatamma is the wife of Ram Reddy. The daughter of Jeedimatla Yellaiah was given in marriage to one Malla Reddy and he was taken as illetam son-in-law. Ram Reddy died issueless. Jeedimatla Lakshma Reddy filed a declaration in CC No.3159/NLG/75 and Malla Reddy filed a declaration in CC No.3161/NLG/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nalgonda, under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). The Land Reforms Tribunal, Nalgonda, in its order dated 20.08.1986 determined that the declarant Jeedimatla Lakshma Reddy, S/o Yella Reddy held the land to an extent of 1.3368 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date i.e., 01.01.1975. On appeal filed by the declarant Jeedimatla Lakshma Reddy the surplus extent was reduced to 0.4351 standard holdings by the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nalgonda, in LRA No.43 of 1985, dated 18.09.1986. Since Lakshma Reddy failed to surrender the surplus lands in spite of issuing of Form-VI notice the lands were suo motu selected by the Government and after following due process of issuing notice as required under Section 7(4) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 and after publishing a public notice in Form No-VIII, and as no objections have been received, the Tribunal has accepted those lands as surplus lands and taken out the possession of those lands under Section 11 of the Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed similar orders and taken over possession of Ac.4-34 cents of dry land in Survey No.110 of Chowdampalli village, Narketpalli, under separate proceedings dated 30.08.1989. Challenging the said two orders, Lakshma Reddy filed an appeal in LRA No.2 of 1990 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nalgonda. During the pendency of the said appeal Jeedimatla Narsamma and Jeedimatla Venkatamma filed applications to implead them as parties. Accordingly, by order dated 03.03.1993 in IA No.49 of 1992 they were impleaded as parties in LRA No.2 of 1990. The main contention of the appellant and the impleaded respondents in LRA No.2 of 1990 is that the implead respondents are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.40-66 cents in Survey Nos.87, 88, 106, 108, 110, 159, 165 and 175 as they got them in the family partition and that the suit filed by them in OS No.81 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, for partition was decreed on 31.12.1974. It is also their case that Jeedimatla Venkatamma executed a Will Deed in favour of Jeedimatla Venkat Reddy, who is the son of the original declarant Lakshma Reddy the appellant in LRA No.2 of 1990. The appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 18.06.1993, dismissed the claim of the appellant mainly on the ground that the decree dated 31.12.1974 passed in O.S. No.81 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, is a decree obtained after 02.05.1972 and any alienation or partition of lands on or after 02.05.1972 and before notified date 01.01.1975 is null and void as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal also referred Section 28 of the Act which envisages that any decree or order of the Court or authority which is inconsistent with the Act is not binding. Thus, the claim of the appellant and implead respondents was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same Jeedimatla Venkatamma filed this revision petition. Since the first petitioner Jeedimatla Venkatamma died, her legal heir Jeedimatla Venkat Reddy, S/o Lakshma Reddy came on record as second petitioner. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the lands said to have been allotted under the Will to the second petitioner herein have to be deleted from the holdings of Jeedimatla Lakshma Reddy the original declarant? The main contention of the learned counsel for the second petitioner is that since Jeedimatla Ram Reddy, husband of Venkatamma died issueless she became entitled to the properties of Jeedimatla Ram Reddy. It is also his case that Nathala Malla Reddy and Jeedimatla Lakshma Reddy filed declarations in CC Nos.3159/NLG/75 and 3161/NLG/75 respectively and that Jeedimatla Venkatamma was shown as their family member. It is also his contention that as per the decree passed in O.S. No.81 of 1974, dated 31.12.1974 Jeedimatla Venkatamma is entitled to the lands which she has bequeathed under the Will to the second petitioner on 26.01.1998. His main contention is that the Tribunal has mistakenly contributed the lands of Jeedimatla Laxmamma to the holdings of Jeedimatla Lakshma Reddy. His main contention is that Venkatamma is not entitled to the undivided share to which Ram Reddy was entitled to. His further contention is that Venkatamma is not the member of the family of Lakshmareddy in view of the definition of Section 3(f) of the Act, because she does not come within the definition of family unit under Section 3(f) of the Act. The learned Government Pleader submits that Venkatamma was not a party to the earlier proceedings and that she did not file any declaration and that for the first time on her application she was added as party in LRA No.2 of 1999 as per the orders in IA No.49 of 1992, dated 03.03.1993. She claimed her rights basing on the decree obtained in O.S. No. 81 of 1974. His main contention is that it was a collusive suit. The suit was filed on 13.12.1974 and it was decreed on 31.12.1974. It is also his contention that Ram Reddy died at the age of 16 years and that there is nothing on record to show that Venkatamma claimed any property of Ram Reddy or that she is the wife of Ram Reddy. It is also his contention that the original owner Yellareddy had only two sons namely Ram Reddy and Lakshma Reddy and one daughter who was given to one Malla Reddy and that said Malla Reddy was taken as illetam son-in-law and that one standard holding was claimed by Mallareddy and another standard holding was claimed by Lakshma Reddy, and that Venkatamma has no concern with the lands of Malla Reddy or Lakshmareddy. As seen from the record, the second petitioner herein has been claiming his right through Jeedimatla Venkatamma. His claim is that Venkatamma executed a Will deed on 26.01.1998. Admittedly, it is an unregistered Will. According to him, Venkatamma and two others filed O.S. No.18 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, and that the said suit was decreed on 31.12.1974. Thus, the original claim of Venkatamma is based on the decree said to have been obtained on 31.12.1974 in O.S. No.81 of 1974. Admittedly, Venkatamma did not file any declaration claiming any rights in the lands now claimed by her. As contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Clause (2) of Section 7 of the Act envisages as follows. “(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), any alienation made by way of sale, lease for a period exceeding six years, gift, exchange, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise, any partition effected or trust created of a holding or any part thereof, or any such transaction effected in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or any award or order of any other authority, on or after the 2nd May, 1972 and before the notified date, in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 shall be null and void.” Section 28 of the Act is as follows. “28. Act to override other laws:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or authority.” Not only sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, but also Section 28 of the Act makes it very clear that the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is a special Act and even if any of its provisions or rules made thereunder are found to be inconsistent to the provisions of any other enactments the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder shall prevail. Admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 81 of 1974 was filed on 13.12.1974 and it was decreed on 31.12.1974. Even if it is admitted that the said suit is not collusive suit, admittedly the decree obtained is hit by Section 7(2) of the Act. Once the claim of Venkatamma which is based on the decree itself is null and void the claim of Venkatamma falls to ground. Once the claim of Venkatamma falls to ground the claim of the second petitioner who is claiming under the document executed by Venkatamma also falls to ground. Admittedly, both these alienations are hit by sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that there are no merits in the revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18.06.2010 Nsr