IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1192 of 2000 Between: B. Ailaiah and another .. Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy District and others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19-01-2000 passed in L.R.A.No.87 of 1996 by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, arising out of C.C.Nos.E/2064 to E/2067 of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District. The revision petitioners are third parties, who claimed that the lands in Survey Nos.174-B, 175-A, 175-B and 177-C of Peerzadiguda village, originally belonged to Vunguri Achaiah and others, who did not own or possess any agricultural lands, which were more than a ceiling area under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”) and who did not submit any declarations before the competent authorities under that Act. One Deepchand Singh was a tenant in those lands and some other lands for sometime and Deepchand Singh, his sons and daughter filed declarations under the Ceiling Law and were declared as surplus holders of an extent equal to 1.5757 standard holdings in the common order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy, dated 3-8-1992 in E/2064, E/2065, E/2066 and E/2067 of 1975. The legal representatives of Deepchand Singh surrendered the land above referred towards surplus land, which was accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District. The revision petitioners, who purchased all these lands, which were originally sold by Vunguri Achaiah and others to Damodar Reddy and Yadagiri under a registered Sale deed dated 25-08-1980, who again sold them to the revision petitioners under the registered sale deeds dated 19-12-1984, preferred appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.37 of 1995. The revision petitioners in whose names the pattas were mutated in the revenue records succeeded in the appeal on 8-12-1995 with the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal remanding the matter to the lower Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law. However, the lower Tribunal again rejected their claim, though Deepchand Singh never claimed to have purchased these lands and had in fact filed an application on 12-09-1991 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal that he had no concern with these lands, which were wrongly included in his holding. He made a declaration that he took the lands on lease for grazing purpose for a short period of six or seven years. As the lower Tribunal rejected the claims of the revision petitioners, they filed L.R.A.No.87 of 1996 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 19-1-2000. Holding that the revision petitioners purchased the property from their vendors after 1-1-1975 and even the vendors of the revision petitioners also purchased the lands after 1-1-1975, the appellate Tribunal, therefore, did not agree with the revision petitioners about the validity of their purchase. The appellate Tribunal also referred to the entries in the pahanies from 1965-66 to 1993-94 filed by the revision petitioners, in which Deepchand Singh was recorded as cultivator in 1972-73 and 1978-79. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the alleged statement of the Patwari of the village before the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) about the purchase of lands by Deepchand Singh, the declarant, and the appellate Tribunal noted the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the title of Vunguri Achaiah and others. Mainly on the basis of the purchase being subsequent to 1-1-1975 and the surrender of lands being by the declarants themselves, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal considered the sale deeds in favour of the revision petitioners to be void and dismissed the appeal without costs. The revision petitioners, therefore, approached this Court against the said order contending that the entries in the Pahanies from 1965-66 established the patta, possession and cultivation of Vunguri Achaiah and others, who subsequently sold the lands in favour of the purchasers of the revision petitioners. The ex parte statement of Patwari could not have erased the title of Vunguri Achaiah and others or their successors and when there is no document of sale in favour of Deepchand Singh and when Vunguri Achaiah and others did not file any declarations under the Ceiling Law, the Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal could not have held the claims of the revision petitioners to be untenable. The revision petitioners, therefore, desired the impugned order to be reversed. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri N. A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 1st respondent-State are heard. Respondents 2 to 5, who are the legal representatives of Deepchand Singh, did not enter appearance before this Court. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners are entitled to question the surrender of lands in question by the declarants on the basis of their purchase from the purchasers from Vunguri Achaiah and others. The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy, passed the order in C.C.Nos.B (E)/2064 of 1975 to B (E) 2067 of 1975 dated 13-12-1993 in the case of Deepchand Singh (died) represented by his legal representatives as the declarants, referring to the Land Reforms Tribunal ordering that Sri Deepchand Singh was holding land in excess of ceiling area and Deepchand Singh challenging the same before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.368 of 1976, which was allowed in part and remanded to the Land Reforms Tribunal. In the fresh decision by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Deepchand Singh was concluded to be holding 1.5757 standard holdings in excess of ceiling area, which he was asked to surrender. In the order dated 13-12-1993, the Land Reforms Tribunal referred to the lands surrendered by the declarant and approved the said surrender of lands directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take possession of the lands. When the revision petitioners raised objections concerning the lands in Survey Nos.174-B, 175-A, 175-B, and 177-C, claiming that Deepchand Singh was only a cultivator for some years as a tenant, who later restored the possession of the lands to the original owner Vunguri Atchaiah and that they are purchasers from Yadaiah and V. Damodar Reddy, who were purchasers from Vunguri Achaiah and others, the Land Reforms Tribunal by memo dated 4-10-1995 rejected their objections as it passed final orders earlier on 13-12-1993. The claim of the revision petitioners that Deepchand Singh had no title or possession over the lands in dispute herein was, therefore, unadjudicated by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said orders, the revision petitioners preferred L.R.A.No.37 of 1995 before the appellate Tribunal, which was decided on 8-12-1995 and the appellate Tribunal noted that a perusal of the Pahanies and the sale deeds of 1980 and 1984 shows that the revision petitioners, their vendors and the vendors of the vendors of the revision petitioners got interest in the property in question and a detailed enquiry has to be conducted to prove the title and possession of the revision petitioners. Accordingly, the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 13-12- 1993 and 4-10-1995 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Land Reforms Tribunal specifically to give a finding about the right, title and possession of the revision petitioners and whether Deepchand Singh was a tenant at one point of time in respect of said lands etc., and the Land Reforms Tribunal was directed to give every opportunity to the parties to produce necessary oral and documentary evidence. In pursuance of the same, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed the order dated 6-8-1996 noting that the legal representatives of the original declarant did not represent before the Tribunal and the order was passed only based on the documents on record. The order noted that Vunguri Narasaiah, Achaiah and others were recorded as pattedar for the years 1965- 66, 1970-71, 1972-73, 1978-79 and 1980-81. Deepchand Singh’s name was noted to have been recorded as cultivator in 1972-73 and 1978-79. In the succeeding years, the revision petitioners were noted to have been recorded as the pattedars and cultivators. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar was stated to have furnished information about Deepchand Singh being recorded as the cultivator from 1971-72 to 1978-79. The Land Reforms Tribunal again referred to the deposition of Patwari of Peerzadiguda village about the purchase by Deepchand Singh and absence of objection of the declarant in computing the land in his holding. The Tribunal also referred to the Authorized Officer stating in his counter about the purchases by the revision petitioners and their vendors being after the implementation of the Ceiling Law. Only on that ground, the Land Reforms Tribunal rejected the claims of the revision petitioners again. The impugned order by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was passed in the appeal by the revision petitioners against the said order of the Land Reforms Tribunal with no further material being placed before the appellate Tribunal. Thus, it is seen from the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 6-8-1996 itself that Deepchand Singh or the legal representatives of Deepchand Singh were never recorded in the revenue records, more particularly the Pahanies from 1965-66, as the pattedars in respect of the lands in dispute herein located in Survey Nos. 174-B, 175-A, 175-B and 177-C of Peerzadiguda village. Deepchand Singh was stated to have been recorded as the cultivator in some of the years between 1971-72 and 1978-79 and even those entries of Deepchand Singh being cultivator in respect of different lands were not in respect of all the years between 1971-72 and 1978-79 or in respect of all the lands even in those years in which such entries were made. The Land Reforms Tribunal itself recorded in the order dated 6-8-1996 that it was the alleged statement of Patwari of the village about the purchase of lands by Deepchand Singh that made the authorities include these lands in the holding of Deepchand Singh, but not any positive statement by Deepchand Singh himself that he has any title or possession over any of these lands. The absence of any objection from Deepchand Singh in computing the lands as part of his holding could not have been concluded as establishing Deepchand Singh having such interest in those lands as to make them part of his computable holding. Even the counter by the authorized officer referred to by the Land Reforms Tribunal clearly stated that the original pattedar sold the lands to third parties from whom the revision petitioners purchased the same. The Tribunal specifically perused the registered sale deeds of 1980 in favour of the vendors of the revision petitioners and of 1984 in favour of the revision petitioners and rejected the sales only on the ground of the same being subsequent to 1-1-1975 (24-1-1971). If the lands belonged to Vunguri Narasaiah, Atchaiah and others, the sales in 1980 or the subsequent sales in 1984 would have been vitiated with reference to the appointed date 1-1-1975, only if the provisions of the Ceiling Law have any relevance to the original pattedars or the land owned and possessed by them and not otherwise. The specific version of the revision petitioners that Vunguri Atchaiah and others were not required by law to file any declaration under the Ceiling Law as they held much lesser extents of lands is not contradicted by any material on record at any point of time and if so, the very facts stated in the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 6-8-1996 show that there was nothing on record to contradict the claims of the revision petitioners. In the impugned order, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal also noted that the purchase by the revision petitioners and their vendors are admitted facts, but rejected their claims only on the ground of the purchase being subsequent to the appointed date 1- 1-1975. The Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal did not even note that even in LR.A.No.368 of 1976, Deepchand Singh, his two sons and daughter specifically stated that a certificate from the Tahsildar was submitted along with other certificates to show that Deepchand Singh took the lands for grazing purpose temporarily on yearly lease for three or four years. Similarly, even before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Deepchand Singh specifically stated about taking these lands for grazing purpose in 1975, which lands are held by third parties, who are entered as the owners and possessors in the revenue records. When the declarant- Deepchand Singh and his legal representatives were thus specifically stating since inception about the lease from original owners and possession through whom the revision petitioners are claiming since intervention in the land ceiling proceedings, there should have been convincing material before the Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal to reject the contentions of the revision petitioners. Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to Section 17 of the Act, prohibiting alienation of holdings with effect from 24-1-1971, while the Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal referred to 1-1-1975, the date of the A.P. Act 1 of 1973 coming into force, for the purpose of considering the alienations in favour of the revision petitioners and their vendors to be invalid and stated that the alienations in favour of the revision petitioners and their vendors were rightly considered void by the Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal. But, what has been prohibited by Section 17 of the Act is an alienation in any manner by a person or the member of a family unit whose holding is in excess of the ceiling area as on 24-1-1971, but not the persons or family units, who did not hold the land in excess of the ceiling area and the specific contention of the revision petitioners unrebutted by any material on behalf of the authorized officer or the declarant is that the original pattedar-Vunguri Achaiah did not hold land in excess of the ceiling area and in fact was under no legal obligation to file any declaration under the Ceiling Law. Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader, also referred to Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, sub Rule-7 of which makes the order of acceptance of surrender final, but such finality can never be against persons whose lands are surrendered by somebody else without any right, title or possession. Any finality of surrender can only be in respect of the persons bound by the orders on the ceiling declaration and the consequential proceedings and not against the third parties. Similarly, the decision in Y. Latchi Raju v. State of A.P., rep. by Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada and others[1] in which a learned Judge of this Court referred to the finality of such orders is also about encumbrances created or alienations made after 1-1-1975, the appointed date, if such encumbrances or alienations were not in accordance with the statute. The ownership of part of the land declared surplus was claimed through the declarant himself in that case, unlike in the present case wherein the revision petitioners claimed their land in their own right purchased from the real owners, who purchased the same from the original pattedar with the declarant or his legal representatives having no right, title, interest or possession in the lands in question except by way of the declarant being claimed to be a tenant for grazing purpose for some years between 1971-72 and 1978-79 without clarity as to in respect of which land in which year. As such, on the factual conclusions arrived at in the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 6-8-1996, the impugned order in the appeal by the appellate Tribunal is unsustainable. While the claim of the revision petitioners has to be upheld under such circumstances, Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader, requested that the matter may be remitted back to the Land Reforms Tribunal to again enquire into and decide the entire dispute in terms of the directions given by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.37 of 1995. But, in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 6-8-1996, relegating the matter back to square one after about 15 years of the litigation is not necessary and as there is sufficient material on record to come to factual conclusions on the probabilities arising out of the said material, a finality should be given in the present revision petition to the dispute. The result of this revision petition shall have no bearing on the further steps to be taken or which may be chosen to be taken under the A.P. Act 1 of 1973 in respect of any land held in excess of the ceiling area by Deepchand Singh or his family unit or his legal representatives and the consideration herein is confined only to the claim of the revision petitioners over the lands purchased by them under the registered sale deeds dated 19-12-1984 referred to in the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 6-8-1996. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, in L.R.A.No.87 of 1996 dated 19-01-2000 is set aside and consequently, the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy, District in C.C.No.E/2064 to E/2067 of 1975, dated 6-8-1996 is also set aside to the extent of the lands covered by the registered sale deeds No.7447/84 and 7456/84, dated 19-12-1984 in favour of the revision petitioners respectively. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2010 Ksn [1] 1998 (1) ALT 429