Veeramreddy Vasantharayudu vs Vinthi Sathiraju and another

M. Ramachandra Raju

The Civil revision petition has arisen out of a declaration filed by the petitioner herein u/s 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The first respondent herein, who is a third party, came forward with an objection petition on 22-9-1975 before the Land Reforms Tribunal making some allegations against the petitioner that he made some mala fide alienations and suppressed certain facts with regard to his lands. He also sent another objection to the Office of the Land Reforms Tribunal on 26-9-1975. Admittedly he has no interest in the lands declared by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the question for consideration is whether the first respondent can figure as an objector before the Land Reforms Tribunal and make allegations against the petitioner when be is not concerned with any of the lands shown by the petitioner in his declaration. On an interpretation made on the language used in Form IV public notice to be issued as provided under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that for a person to figure as an objector he need not have any interest in the lands declared. I am afraid this interpretation made by the Appellate Tribunal does not seem to be correct.

Provision is made under Rule 4 of the Rules for publication and verification of the declaration filed under sections 8 and 18 of the Act. It is provided therein that a public notice in Form IV containing the particulars of the land and the person holding such land in respect of the declaration shall be published by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the Office of the Tribunal in which the declaration has been filed and notice board of the offices of the Tahsildars and the Gram Panchayats within whose jurisdictions, the holding or a part thereof is situated. In Form IV, it is mentioned that any person having any objection concerning the schedule lands, which means, the lands specified in the declaration filed, may file his objections in writing supported by a summary of evidence and copies of documents relied on, before the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice. It is further stated therein that objections received within the time will be enquired into on such date as the tribunal may fix and communicated to the declarant and the objector.

The next relevant provision is contained in rule 6 of the Rules which deals with enquiry and determination of ceiling area. It is provided therein that notice of the enquiry for determination of the ceiling area in respect of a declaration shall be given in Form V to the declarant, to the other person interested and to the objectors, if any. There is also a provision under rule 16 (7) that any person, may at any time during the pendency of the proceedings, be permitted to appear and be heard and to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. This is in addition to the enquiry to be made as provided under rule 6.

By reading the above provisions, the Appellate Tribunal thought that the objectors mentioned in the above provisions are apart from the persons interested in the lands declared or the matter. In the public notice under Form IV when it is mentioned ''any person having any objection concerning the schedule lands (which means the lands shown in the declaration)'', it only means'' any person who is interested in the lands declared, and having an objection. In rule 16 (7) when it is said'' any person interested in the matter'' means any person who has substantial interest in the subject-matter relating to the declaration. It is not possible to think that the Legislature intended to confer any right on an outsider, who is not having any substantial interest in the lands or the matter relating to the declaration to intervene and file objection. The Appellate Tribunal seems to have been obsessed with the fact that under rule 6 with regard to the persons to whom notice of enquiry has to be given, it was mentioned as persons interested and also objectors. Notice of enquiry any way has to be given to the objectors since the objections will already be there filed by them. There can also be other interested, persons in the land declared or the subject matter within the knowledge of the Tribunal apart from those interested. Who have already filed their objections. If there are any such interested persons, the rule provides that notice should also be given to those interested persons. Therefore, when it is mentioned in the rule, other persons interested it only means persons interested other than those who have already filed objections.

From a fair reading of the above provisions, it would appear that only persons who have a substantial interest in the subject matter of the declaration can figure as objectors and file their objections. Accordingly the civil revision petition is allowed and it is held that the first respondent cannot maintain the objections filed by him. No costs.