IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.28992 of 1995 Between: Datla Mouli Suryanarayanamma and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 10 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.28992 of 1995 O R D E R: The petitioners who are the daughters of the 6th respondent- declarant filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent-Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) to delete the lands of an extent of Ac.7.88 cents covered by Sy.Nos.557/2, 557/3, 551/1, 551/3, 443/3, 443/2, 548/7, 548/2, 547/6, 547/3 and 547/11 of Kolanka village, Kajuluru Mandal from the holdings of the 6th respondent-declarant in L.C.C.No.794/KDA/75 and to declare the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal in the declaration filed by their father-6th respondent in respect of the above lands in which they have vested remainder along with 7th respondent as illegal. 2. It is stated that the father of the petitioners i.e. 6th respondent- declarant filed declaration in L.C.C.No.794/KDA/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada under Sec.8 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1/1973) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on his behalf and on behalf of his family unit. It is stated that the 6th respondent-declarant was deaf and dump person. The petitioners and the 7th respondent who are the daughters of 6th respondent/declarant-Datla Venkata Subbaraju @Subbaraju are also deaf and dumb girls. It is stated that the 8th respondent/declarant by name Datla Suryanarayana Raju filed declaration in LCC.795/75 on his behalf and on behalf of his family unit showing the lands covered by registered settlement deed and Wills viz., (1) an extent of Ac.11.65 cents in Sy.No.453 of Kolanka village, in which the father of the petitioners had a limited interest and the petitioners and 7th respondent have vested remainder as their father had no male issues; (2) an extent of Ac.3.08 cents covered by Sy.Nos.546/1, 465/4, 446/2 and 546/5 of Kolanka village, in which the father of the petitioners had life interest and thereafter the petitioners and 7th respondent have got vested remainder; and (3) an extent of Ac.4.43 cents covered by Sy.Nos.550/1, 551/3, 443/3, 443/2 and 548/7 of Kolanka village over which the grand father of the petitioners by name Datla Suryanarayana Raju created life interest in favour of his daughter Sagi Surayamma and vested reminder to his son-in-law Datla Suryanarayana Raju-declarant in L.C.C.No.795/75. The said Sagi Surayamma died in the year 1985 and after her demise, the declarant in L.C.C.No.795/75 acquired the said extent which was his future acquisition and he was not holding the said extent in any capacity on the date of the Act 1/73 which came into force on 01.01.1975. The Tribunal included the said extent in the holding of 8th respondent- declarant in L.C.C.No.795/75 illegally and without jurisdiction. 3. It is stated that an extent of Ac.0.29 cents covered by Sy.No.557/2 and 3 of Kolanka village was bequeathed in favour of Sri Sri Sri Vijaya Gopala Swamy varu temple for performance of Kalyana Mahotsavam by the wife of the 10th respondent. She also bequeathed an extent of Ac.3.98 cents under a registered Will dated 16.12.1959 covered by Sy.Nos.545/1, 467/4, 467/11 of Kolanka village in favour of the father of the petitioners to enjoy the property during his lifetime and after his demise the petitioners would be entitled to enjoy the same. It is stated that the father of the petitioners included the said lands in his holdings in L.C.C.No.794/75 and the Tribunal determined the standard holding including the above said lands as of his life estate though the declarant was not the owner of the said properties. Inclusion of the lands covered by settlement deeds dated 24.06.1957, 28.06.1957 and 28.06.1957 and registered Wills dated 24.10.1957, 10.05.1957, 28.06.1957 and 24.10.1957 in the holding of the 6th and 8th respondents-declarants in L.C.C.Nos.794/75 and 795/75 are illegal and without jurisdiction, as they were not holding the said lands in any capacity, as defined under Sec.3(H) of the Act and therefore, those lands are liable to be excluded or deleted. 4. It is stated that the petitioners are having vested remainder right over the lands as per the registered document which was executed by the 10th respondent and his wife, who is the son of the 8th respondent- declarant, but pursuant to the said orders of the Tribunal, the authorities are trying to take possession of the surplus lands from the declarants which belong to the petitioners. Thus, it is stated that inclusion of the said lands in the holdings of the 6th and 8th respondents-declarants in which the petitioners and 7th respondent are having vested remainder right is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further stated that the petitioners are entitled for the absolute right after the death of the limited life estate holder and the said lands are liable to be reverted back to the petitioners under Sec.12(5-A) of the Act. 5. A counter is filed on behalf of Respondents Nos.1 to 5 authorities stating that against the orders of the Tribunal dated 05.01.1978 in LCC.Nos.795 and 794/KDA/75 both the declarants/respondents Nos.6 and 8 filed L.R.A.Nos.925 and 926/78 respectively with regard to exclusion of certain lands and their classification. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal passed orders on 24.12.1979 to exclude certain lands in both the cases and remanded the appeals for fresh disposal for the purpose of deciding the status of the declarants’ daughters as major or minors as on the notified date. On such remand, the Tribunal by order dated 12.05.1980 held that both the 3rd and 4th daughters of the 8th respondent/declarant in LCC No.795/KDA/75 are majors and they are excluded from the holding of the declarant. As both the daughters of the 8th respondent are treated as majors, it was held that each of them was entitled to one standard holding. Accordingly, in modification of the earlier orders both the declarants were declared as surplus holders of the land of an extent of 0.4314 and 0.5255 standard holdings respectively in LCC Nos.794 and 795/KDA/75 as on the notified date and revised notice in Form-IV to surrender the surplus determined land was ordered to be issued. 6. As against the said orders, some third parties claiming themselves as tenants also filed appeals in LRA Nos.19, 20 and 21/1982 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal remanded the cases again to the Tribunal for enquiry as to whether they are tenants or not and the Tribunal rejected the claim of the third parties tenants, against which they have also filed revision in CRP No.3763/1988 which was dismissed by this Court on 27.02.1992. It is stated that the petitioners who were the daughters of the 6th respondent filed this writ petition to unsettle the settled orders in 1995 in order to drag on the surrender proceedings. It is stated that the status of the daughters of the declarants was discussed in detail and they have also included in the family unit of the declarant as minor daughters and hence the question of vested remainder to the petitioners does not arise. All the contentions have been considered in detail by the Land Reforms Tribunal as well as Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at various stages and the lands shown in the declaration were got forfeited and reported that they are under the possession of the declarants and no objections were received on Form-IV notice issued by the Tribunal. The petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of the enactment of Act 10/77 as the declarant is entitled to hold one standard holding and the minor sons and daughters would be treated as part and parcel of the family unit of the declarant. Hence the question of allowing 1/5th share to the minor daughters does not arise in view of the amendment Act 10/77. Moreover, daughters, wife and self of the declarant are included in the family unit of the declarant and accordingly, the holding of the declarant was computed. 7. With regard to contention of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners as well as the petitioners are deaf and dumb, it is stated that the contention about their disability and physical fitness was never raised and argued either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate Tribunal at any stage. Moreover, the lands covered by Sec.10(3) orders were already taken possession by the Government under Sec.11 of the Act. As the lands were already vested in the Government, even if the petitioners contend that they are in possession, such possession is unauthorised and unlawful. It is stated that there was no mistake committed either by the Tribunal or by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in computing the holding of the declarants. Moreover, the daughters are not entitled to any benefit either as absolute owners or holders vested interest. The petitioners are not entitled for 1/4th share in the property of the family as the family unit of the declarant consists of self, wife and two minor daughters. The declarant, being father of the petitioners, is the head of the family and no notice need be served on the family members, whether they are minor daughters, sons or wife, and hence the contention of the petitioners are untenable. The declarants have rightly filed the declarations under Sec.8(1) of the Land Reforms Act with regard to their family unit and the public notice in Form-IV was issued, but no objections have been received in response to the notice. 8. Respondents Nos.8 to 11 also filed a counter, obviously supporting the claim of the petitioners. 9. Heard both the counsel. 10. The “ceiling area” means the extent of land specified in Sec.4 or Sec.4A to be the ceiling area. The “family unit” means in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters, if any. In the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters. ‘Person’ includes an individual, a family unit, a trustee, a company, a firm, a society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Within the definition of ‘owner’ a limited owner does not include. 11. Even if the minors have got a vested remainder interest and though the declarants are limited owners, the lands in which declarants have limited ownership for which the minor daughters of the declarant have vested remainder shall be liable to be included in the ceiling area of the family unit. If the minor daughters own any absolute right or limited interest, they shall be treated as the family unit only. Whether the minors have got an absolute interest or vested interest does not make any difference. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the minor daughters of the declarant who are the petitioners herein as on the notified date have got vested remainder and that the declarants have a limited ownership, the land for which the declarants have a limited ownership is not liable to be included in the family unit of the declarants are without any basis. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners are irrelevant and untenable. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v M.Lakshmidevi[1] which arose from out of the order in the Civil Revision Petitions passed by the A.P.High Court, wherein the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the land is not entitled to be computed in the hands of the agreement holders as they were only limited owners and their possession is subject to certain rules and the said lands are liable to be reverted to the persons having vested interest. Therefore, the lands surrendered by the agreement holders’ vest in the vested remainder. The above judgment is not relating to the right of the minors. The vested remainders as well as the limited owner are entitled to one standard holding. In the instant case, the orders of the Tribunal have become final and the declarants have not filed any revisions against the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. But they have resorted to file this Writ of Mandamus de horsing the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal. In the instant case, as the petitioners are minors and even if it is assumed that the said land is their absolute property, they are not entitled for a standard holding as on the notified date, as the family unit is entitled to only one standard holding. Once the lands have been computed in the hands of Kartha of the joint family, the minors would have got no independent right either vested remainder or absolute right. 13. As the subject lands were already declared as surplus lands and the possession vests with the Government, and the orders of the Tribunal attained finality, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: .10.2010 Dsr [1] (1993) 2 SCC 421