HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2121 of 2010 Between: Badireddi Naga Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner/appellant And The State of A.P.,rep. By its Authorised officer, Land Reforms, Collectorate, Kakinada. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2121 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision under Section 21 of the Land Reforms (ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, is directed against the orders dated 06.04.2010, in L.R.A.No.4 of 2005, passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari at Kakinada, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, in L.C.C.Nos.1517, 1518 and 1519/Rajahmundry/1975, dated 12.07.2005. The facts that give rise to filing of this revision are briefly stated as under: The father of the petitioner late Sri Veerabhadrayya filed declaration in L.C.C.No.1519 of 1975 and his two sons namely Nageswara Rao and Venkata Reddy filed declarations in L.C.C.Nos.1517 and 1518 of 1975 respectively. The Tribunal by order, dated 06.10.1993, passed an order holding that the declarants in L.C.C.Nos.1517 and 1518 of 1975 were not holding any excess land, whereas the father of the declarant i.e., the declarant in L.C.C.No.1519 of 1975 holds the land equivalent to 3.4899 and after his entitlement of 2.2780, he was declared excess land holder to a tune of 1.2119 SH. Aggrieved by the said order, all the three declarants namely the father of the petitioner and his two sons filed L.R.A.Nos.164, 173 and 174 of 1993. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada by its order dated 08.11.1994 allowed the appeals with the following directions:- 1. To show the lands bearing S.No.259/2, 74/2A, 75/2A and 76/2 and 323/2 and 3 as situated in Thantikonda. 2. To exclude land of an extent of Ac.0.93½ in S.No.259/2; 0.19 cts in Sy.No.74/2A and 0.34 cts in S.No.75/2A as already directed in L.R.A.No.105/91. 3. To treat land bearing S.No.221/1 of Pedabhimapalli as dry land. 4. To hold fresh enquiry and to decide as to on which basis the land bearing S.No.125/6 of Atchutapuram classified as SCW is included in the holding of the appellant and to exclude if it does not belong to him. 5. To hold enquiry and give decision whether the sale deeds Ex.C1 and C3 relating to S.No.221/1 and 128/1 of Pedabhimapalli (V) are void by virtue of Section 3(1)(A) of Regulation 1/70 if so they are liable to be excluded from the holding of the appellants and in case the said sale deeds are valid, the land bearing S.No.221/1 is liable to be excluded as it belongs to daughter of the appellant in L.R.A.No.164/93 and not shown as member of his family unit and in case it is to be included to. While setting aside the order, it was further directed to enquire as to whether the appellant in L.R.A.No.164 of 1993 is entitled to 1.2000 SH towards his entitlement and re-determine the holding of the Declarants accordingly and directed the declarants, who are the appellants therein, to appear before the lower Tribunal on 21.12.1994. The said order has been confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos. 5058, 5059 and 5060 of 1994, dated 23.09.1997, and while remanding the case this Court directed the Primary Tribunal to enquire into the points and determine as per the directions given by the L.R.A.T., Kakinada and also to enquire whether there are Quarry Lands in S.Nos.93 & 94 of Pedabhimpalli (V) of Devipatnam (M). On such disposal when the declarants appeared before the lower Tribunal, the Tribunal took up the matter and framed the following five points for consideration. 1. Whether the lands in S.No.125/6 of Atchutapuram belong to the declarant. 2. Whether the lands covered by S.Nos.221/1 and 128/1 of Pedabhimapalli attracts LTR and so can they be excluded. 3. Whether the LTRP declarant is entitled to 1.2000 SH? 4. Whether the 5th issue Sri B.Naga Venkateswara Rao is a major by 01.01.1975? 5. Whether the lands classified as SCW be treated as dry lands in view of failure of crop test, though Government source of water was available? 6. Whether the lands in S.Nos.93 & 94 of Pedabhimapalli are Quarry Lands? On point No.1 it was held that inclusion of lands in S.No.125/6 measuring Ac.3.79 of Atchutapuram is a holding by mistake and the same has to be excluded. On point No.2 it was held that the transaction between a non-tribal and tribal is null and void and the lands covered by S.Nos.221/1 and 128/1 measuring Ac.1.37 and 1.78 of Pedabhimpalli (V) are liable to be excluded from the holding of the declarants and accordingly they are excluded. Pont No.3 was rejected. On point No.4 the claim of the 5th issue-B.Naga Venkateswara Rao to declare him as landlord has been rejected. On point No.5, the wetlands claimed to be treated as dry lands were treated as dry lands and point No.6, to treat the lands in S.Nos.93 and 94 as quarry lands, was rejected. Questioning the rejection of the claim of the petitioner – B.Naga Venkateswara Rao, who is the 5th issue of Veerabhadrayya, on point No.4, the petitioner filed the appeal claiming that his date of birth is only 30.08.1956, but at the time of admission into the school his date of birth was wrongly shown as 15.07.1961. Therefore, he is a major by 01.01.1975 and he is entitled to retain a substandard holding. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner/appellant therein claims to be a major, it is his bounden duty to file a declaration under the Land Ceiling Act on 01.01.1975, but he has not filed any such declaration showing the lands, which fell to his share. But the contention of the petitioner is that he was not aware of his date of birth and he came to know about the true facts recently. In the 3rd declaration submitted by his father and his two brothers, the appellant claimed that he is a major and for the first time he raised the said point when the matter is remanded to the Primary Tribunal. The Primary Tribunal after taking into consideration the application filed by the petitioner first time on 23.01.2005 along with the birth extract of the petitioner issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gokavaram, wherein the petitioner is aged 49 years as on 11.05.2005; the S.S.L.C. Certificate of the 1st issue of the deceased declarant, which shows his date of birth as 25.02.1950; the birth certificate of the 3rd issue, which shows his date of birth as 26.07.1953; after verification of the school certificate; and extract of birth register, found that there is a variation in the ages noted therein and are not tallying and accordingly, rejected the claim of the petitioner to declare him as a major. The lower appellate tribunal after verifying the contents of the births and deaths register found that the birth register extract was issued on 11.01.2005 and in the very said extract if at all the information about the birth of the petitioner was given to the officers concerned on 31.08.1956 itself, such an important piece of evidence would not lost the site of Veerabhadrayya, father of the petitioner, when he filed two separate declarations in the name of his other two sons viz., Nageswara Rao and Venkat Reddy. He would have also filed separate declaration in favour of the petitioner also. The petitioner except claiming that he born on 30.08.1956 as per the certificate issued, he has failed to produce the entries in the births and deaths register of his other brothers and sisters, who are the children of Veeabhadrayya, to substantiate his plea. Accordingly, the lower appellate Tribunal rightly confirmed the order passed by the primary tribunal. It is common knowledge that when the father filed a declaration not only in his name and in the name of his other two sons claiming separate standard holdings for them, it is quite natural that to save the property he will file a declaration on behalf of the petitioner also. When the petitioner knows that he is a major by 01.01.1975, till 2005 i.e., 30 long years he has not chosen to make any claim except when the enquiry is taken up by the Primary Tribunal, pursuant to the remand order, itself speaks about the correctness and genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner. In view of the same, concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Tribunals below do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 13th August 2010 lmv