THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.829 of 2006 Dated:- _______April, 2006 Between:- Mekala Tirupathi Rao …Petitioner AND Authorised Officer and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.829 of 2006 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 13.09.2005 passed in LRA No.1 of 2000 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, (‘lower appellate Tribunal’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the award dated 05.06.2000 passed in L.C.C.No.1/BMN/98 by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Palakonda (‘Primary Tribunal’, for brevity), was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Mekala Tirupathi Rao – the appellant herein is the son of late Mekala Sundaranarayana. The appellant and his father have filed separate declarations vide L.C.C.No.490/PPM/75 dated 08.04.1976 and L.C.C.No.491/PPM/75 dated 08.04.1976 respectively before the Primary Tribunal declaring the lands possessed by them. The appellant has shown his wife, one minor daughter and two minor sons as his family members, i.e., as one family unit, whereas, the father of the appellant had shown himself, his first wife – Paramma and his second wife – Muttalamma as members of his family. The appellant and his father were declared as surplus land holders by the Primary Tribunal, vide separate orders in the declarations filed by them. Late Mekala Sundaranarayana died on 19.03.1978. Then, the appellant filed a separate declaration on 22.11.1998 declaring that an extent of Acs.37.82 cents of land held by his father and specifically contended that he got half share in the lands held by his father. 3. The Primary Tribunal, on comparision of the old declaration filed by the appellant on 08.04.1975 and after enquiry, held that the appellant has omitted Acs.13.59 cents of land in his fresh declaration and accordingly determined his holding and held that the appellant is holding the land in excess of the ceiling area and that he has to surrender 0.4101½ standard holdings excluding the land of 0.1053 standard holdings which he has already surrendered to the Government vide L.C.C.No.490/PPM/75, dated 08.04.1976. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Primary Tribunal, the appellant preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court contending inter alia that the land belonging to Paramma cannot be included in his holding in the present enquiry, since she is not the wife of his father and that his sisters i.e., daughters of late Mekala Sundaranarayana would also get equal share in the lands of his father. 5. The lower appellate Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that Mekala Sundaranarayana – the father of the appellant himself had shown the lands of his first wife – Paramma in his holdings and that the declaration filed by his father became final and, therefore, the claim of the appellant that the lands of Paramma – the first wife of his father cannot be included on the ground that she is not wife of his father is not sustainable. It was also held that certain alienations were already considered and now, it cannot be re-agitated in the second round of litigation; that the appellant himself filed fresh declaration under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (‘the Act’, for brevity) after the death of his father in which, he himself claimed half share and basing on his own declaration, the Primary Tribunal has determined his holdings computing half share in the lands of his father and now, the appellant cannot say that his sisters are also having share in the properties left by his father; that none of the sisters of the appellant have claimed any share in the properties left over by his father; that the family unit of a joint family is to be regarded as such only with reference to the notified date under the Act; and that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act have no overriding effect over the Land Reforms act. Holding so, the lower appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant, which order is impugned herein. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the sisters of the appellant have got equal share in the lands of their father. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether there are any grounds in the appeal. 8. Admittedly, after the demise of Mekala Sundaranarayana, the appellant himself has filed fresh declaration under Section 8(1) of the Act and he himself has shown the total extent of land held by his father and claimed half share in those lands. The lower appellate Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and there is nothing on record to say that the findings of the lower appellate Tribunal are perverse. It has to be seen that the appellant himself claimed half share in Acs.37.82 cents of land held by him after the demise of his father – Late Sundaranarayana and on verification, it was found that the appellant himself was in possession of those lands. To substantiate the same, Village Account No.3 Adangal Pahani of the appellant was also verified. Thus, the appellant cannot argue against his own declaration. Certain lands, which were said to be alienated, were already excluded from the holding of his father and now, the extents of such lands cannot be again excluded and the same issue cannot be re-agitated once again. 9. Thus, the order of the lower appellate Tribunal is based on well appreciation of evidence on record and I find no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the same. The revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR ______ April, 2011 Bvv