AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venkata Ramana, J
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-Court of learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole in LRA No. 1 of 2014, dated 27.07.2018. The appellants are third parties to the proceedings before Land Reforms Tribunal, Ongole in C.C. No. 1344/CLX/1975.
The deceased 5th respondent during his lifetime filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Reforms Tribunal including on behalf of his family on 11.04.1975. By an order dated 23.04.1977, the Land Reforms Tribunal determined and declared that he and his family held surplus land equal to 5.3686 standard holding in excess of ceiling area by 01.01.1975. The property at Manchiryala, Hyderabad West (Presently in Rangareddy District) as shown in the table hereunder was taken for the purpose of computation initially as a part of holding of the 5th respondent.
Name of the Village
Sy.No.
Extent Acs.
Classification of the land
Manchiryala, West Hyderabad
19
0.13
Dry
0.0025
68
1.08
Dry
0.0200
90
1.98
Dry
0.0367
Total
3.19
0.0592
Thereafter, the 5th respondent filed a petition before LRT, Ongole stating that the information relating to the above lands was incorrectly furnished for determination of his standard holding and of his family and requested to exclude the same from the computation so effected. In lieu of the above land, he furnished other lands at Himayath Nagar, H/o, Enikepalli, which are described in the table below for the purpose of such declaration.
Name of the village
Sy.No.
Extent Acs.
Classification of the land
Himayat Nagar, H/o Enikepalli
19
6.39
Dry
0.1184
68
3.69 ½
Dry
0.200
90
0.02
Dry
0.0685
Total
10.10 ½
0.1873
In support of ownership of these lands, the 5th respondent had also produced copies of the sale deeds under which he had purchased these lands. They are the sale deed dated 25.11.1966 wherein Ac.6-39 in Sy. No. 19 at Himayat nagar, Enikepalli, West Hyderabad Taluk purchased by him from Sri. Gopanamoni Mallaiah, Son of Sri. Balaiah and Sri. Posawani Agamma, Wife of Sri. Mallaiah and another sale deed dated 26.11.1966 under which he had purchased Ac.3-69 ½ cents in Sy. Nos. 69 and 90 of the same village referred to above from one Sri. Kaja Khan, Son of Sri. Mahadar Khan for valuable consideration. Ultimately, surplus holding of the 5th respondent and his family was arrived at by the Land Reforms Tribunal by 01.01.1975, at 1.6748 standard holding. An order was passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), Ongole on 04.02.1993, with reference to surrendering an extent of Ac.6-92 cents comprised in S. No. 19 of Ac.3-30 cents and S. No. 68 of Ac.3-62 cents of Himayat Nagar Village, H/o Enikepalli, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District.
In passing such order, surrender of an extent of land equivalent to 1-5467 standard holding by him was taken into consideration, in respect of which orders were also passed under Section 10(3) of the Act on 24.01.1980 and possession of such lands was also taken over by then Tahsildar, Chirala. The order of LRT dated 04.02.1983 also refers to provisional approval of the surrender of these lands at Himayatnagar and a publicaticn in Form-VIII was taken out on 31.10.1992 calling for objections before accepting such surrender following required Rules as well as publishing a notice therefor. This order further observed that no objections were filed pursuant to such notice and upon its satisfaction, the surrender of the above extent of Ac.6-92 cents at Himayath Nagar, H/o Enikepalli, Moinabad Mandal, was accepted,
The revision petitioners, represented by their GPA, contended that the lards so surrendered at Himayat Nagar, H/o Enikepalli have been their absolute property, which have been in their continuous possession and enjoyment without any manner of dispossession. They further contended that no notice was issued before alleged delivery of possession and that a! eged acceptance of surrender, is false. They further contended that the 5th respondent had no right to these lands nor to surrender them as a part of his excess land holding for the purposes of the Act. Basing on the outcome in writ petition No. 33662 of 2010 filed by them on the file of then High court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by virtue of the order therein dated 20.03.2014, whereby they were given liberty to pursue the remedies available in law, they assert that their claim has to be considerec. It is also their contention that for the first time in the year 2010 they came to know about the alleged surrender of these lands by the 5th respondent as well as during March, 2014. Thus, they tried to explain gaining knowledge of the alleged surrender.
It is also the contention of the petitioners that a letter was addressed by then Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District on 14.07.1983 to the RDO, Ongole stating that the 5th respondent did not have any concern to the lands in S. No. 19 of Ac. 10-27 cents, S. No. 68 of Ac. 3-25 cents and S. No. 90 of Ac.0-02 cents, since his name is not found in any of the columns of Pahanis. It is the main plank of the objection raised by the petitioners with reference to surrender of lands by the 5th respondent to the Government. Without considering the effect of this letter, according to them and in ignorance of it, the LRT, Ongole had passed an order on 04.02.1993 accepting surrender of Ac.6-92 cents as stated above. It is the main grievance of the petitioner.
Sri. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, on behalf of Sri. T.D. Phani Kumar, in his arguments brought to notice of this Court of the above facts and circumstances stating that there is clear violation in following the procedure in terms of Section 10(5)(a)(ii) of the Act, since the scenario presented in this case is a title dispute.
The learned senior counsel further contended that in view of section 47 of A.P.(TA) Lands Act, the alleged surrender itself is illegal and invalid and thus, the LRT, Ongole had erred in considering the surrender so offered without any right or interest in this land by the 5th respondent. It is further contended that it was an attempt by the 5th respondent to avoid effect of the Act in surrendering these lands. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that when all these facts and circumstances were brought to the notice of the LRAT, Ongole, they were not properly appreciated and thus, in view of involvement of valuable lands, such non-consideration amounted to denial of justice. Thus elaborating, the learned senior counsel requested to allow the present Civil Revision Petition to safeguard the interest of the petitioners.
Learned Government Pleader while elaborating on the material, contendec that pursuant to acceptance of surrender of the lands upon publication of notice under Section 10(3) of the Act, the land was also utilized by distributing among seven families belonging to the eligible community and when once such action has been taken, it is no more open for the petitioners to complain or to contend that the proceedings in the land reforms tribunal in this respect are illegal. Thus stating, the learned Government Pleader requested not to interfere with the order under appeal.
Upon considering the submissions on behalf of the parties, the LRAT, Ongole rejected the contention of the petitioners and dismissed it.
Now, the point for determination is-"Whether the claim of the petitioners assailing the alleged surrender of extent of land at Himayat Nagar, H/o Enikepalli and consequential orders passed by the LRT as well as the LRAT are proper and justified?
POINT:
It is significant to note that the petitioners did not approach LRT, Ongole, either in the first instance after they allegedly came to know of surrender of the lands of which they claimed to be the rightful owners or at any later stage. Possibly they could have approached the tribunal immediately after they came to know about the surrender of the land under Rule 16 of the Rules framed under this Act. Instead, they chose to approach the LRAT at Ongole in the year 2014, as if they were questioning the acceptance of surrender of these lands by the tribunal.
The order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 04.02.1993 indicates that all the procedures required under the Act including publication of notices in terms of Section 10 were carried out. If the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of this land, as rightful owners, by then, they had every opportunity to object on whatever ground available to them including the claim set up now. It is not open for them to contend that no such procedure was followed in the light of the contents of the order of the LRT dated 04.02.1993.
Their main objection basing on letter of Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, dated 14.07.1983, to RDO, Ongole reflects the situation then available as per Pahanis. It is true that there is no reference of such instance in the order of the LRT dated 04.02.1993. At the same time, it should not be lost sight of the fact that steps were taken to satisfy the criteria laid down under Section 10(5)(a) of the Act before acceptance of these lands. Report from MRO, Moinabad, Rangareddy District was called for in this respect as per this order of the LRT, Ongole dated 14.02.1993. The petitioners are not in a position to explain this situation in any manner. Therefore, reliance placed on the information furnished by Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Taluk to the RDO, Ongole by letter dated 14.07.1993, cannot have significant bearing in this case.
Added to it, the version of the 5th respondent, while proposing to surrender these lands towards excess holding was fortified basing on the sale deeds produced by him to the LRT, Ongole, details of which are referred to supra. They do indicate that these lands were purchased by the 5th respondent in or about the year 1966. When they are considered along with the order of the LRT, Ongole dated 04.02.1993 and its contents, they stand against the contents of the letter referred to above of the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, dated 14.07.1983.
In the light of the material so available, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that there is a title dispute in respect of these lands, which should have been rejected from acceptance of surrender as per Section 10(5)(a)(ii) of the Act is difficult to accept. Similarly, invoking Section 47 of A.P.(TA) Act appears to be too alien for the present purpose to accept. Even otherwise, in support of these claims of the competitors they should have laid a foundation before the land reforms tribunal.
When proceedings were completed in terms of section 10(3) of the Act and when the ground situation appears that the lands so surrendered have already been alienated by issuance of pattas to seven individuals who are stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land, it is too difficult to accept the claim of the petitioners. It appears the claim has been so set up only upon entry of the GPA of the petitioners in these affairs and till then the petitioners remained quiet, without raising any objection. When the possession of these lands upon surrender was taken by the year 1993, the claim of the petitioners that they came to know about it in the year 2010 or during March, 2014 is far-fetched. Two different periods with nearly four years in between 2010 and March, 2014, when they gained knowledge about these matters itself is indicative of their slippery stand.
Therefore, for all the above reasons, rejecting the claim of the petitioners and as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the inference to be drawn is that without any basis, the claim has been made by the petitioners.
For the above reasons, the order of the LRAT, Ongole need not be interference with.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As sequel thereto, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Order granted earlier, shall stand vacated.