The High Court · 2025

Order

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed in L.R.A.No.8 of 2OO4 on the hle of the Chairman, Land Relorms Appellate Tri}>unal cum ll Additional District Court, Rangareddy District (for short 'LRAT)

2. The brief facts of the case are that B.Ranga Reddy (died) and his two sons, B. Vijaya Reddy and B. Vishweshwar Reddy, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, filed declarations under the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the ActJ and uide order dated O2.05.1981, the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short 'LRT) declared 16.1677 standard holdings to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling. The revision petitioner - State, preferred an appeal uide LRA No. 17 of 1983, wherein, the Appeilate Authority - LRAT, uide order dated 09.07. 1986, set aside the hndings of LRT, on issue Nos.2, 4, arrd 5 and directed recomputation. In compliance, the LRT passed order on 06.03.1996 holding that the declarants are 2 S(S.J ) tA.No.l /2025 IN/AND. CRP.No.3454 Ol' 2OO8 entitled to 3.00 standard holdings and declaring 20.5147 standard holdings in excess. Aggrieved thereb1,, the respondents filed appeals uide LRA Nos. 77l 1 996 and I I 2OO l, during r.r'hich issues regarding exclusion of Pot Karab land and allotment of one holding to an unmarried daughter, were raised.

3. The LRAT uide order dated 03.O4.2001, deleted an extent of Ac.235.17 guntas comprising Pot Karab, protected tenancy lands, antl one standard holding for the unmarried daughter, and remanded the matter to the LRT. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner/ State filed CRP.Nos.Sl97 and 5198 of 2OO2, which wert: dismissed by this Court on Ol.lO.2OO2. Thereafter, the LRT, based on a survey conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey anrl Land Records, Ranga Reddy East, passed order declaring 1O4.27 acres as Pot Karab and 5.OO acros as Shikam, totaling 109.27 acres, and held 12.9743 standard holdings as surplus. The revision petitioner/ State again preferred an appeal, but the LRAT uide order dated 28.11.2006, upheld the findings of LRT. The revision petitioner/ State contends that both the Tribunals, i.e., LRT and the LRAT, failed to consider revenue records, such as, pahanis and Sethwar, which carry statutory presumption, and conducted proceedings without issuing 3 SKS,.I IA.No.l /2025 IN/AND CRP No 3454 OF 2008 proper notice or adhering to the procedures under the Act and Rules, thereby, rendering the hnal determination perverse and jurisdictionally infirm. That being So, the_ revision petitioner/ State filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in this C.R.P., praying this Court to receive the Map and Pahanis of Sy.Nos.S12, 515, 516, 517, 651,657,658, 659, 660,66I and 662, situated at Gundla Pochampally Village of Medchal Mandal. 4 . Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Heroor, learned Gove rnment Pleader for Arbitration, appearing for revision petitioner, Sri Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for rcspondcnt No.1, and Smt Manjari Ganu, learned counsel for respondcnt No.2.

5. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the LRT has no authorit5r to direct the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, to conduct survey in respect of land bearing survey Nos.510 to 517, 522, 648 and 666 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, so as to report regarding the actual area covered by pot kharab without going into the records pertaining to the verification report submitted by the verification Officer at the time of enquiry conducted as per the provisions of the Act. He contended that the LRT ought not to have deleted one unit to one Smt Indira, unmarried daughter of 4 SKS,J IA.No. I /2025 IN/AND CRP.No.3454 OF 2008 declarant, as there is over riding fact of Land Reforms Act, on other laws. He lamented that the LRT ought to have taken into consideration the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, with regard to Sections 4A and 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the scope of Section 29A relating to equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property, which overrides Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. He asserted that Section 44 would be applicable to major sons ald not major daughters, and that without considering the legal principles and veri$ring records, the LRT acted mechanically without pe rusing the verification report submitted by verification Officer during enquiry under Land Reforms Act, and LRAT erroneously conhrmed the view of LRT.

6. In addition, learned counsel for revision petitioner incessantly contended that the LRAT ought to have taken into consideration the plea taken by the authorized Of{icer regarding the authority of the Tribunal in directing the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records to submit a report regarding the pot kharab lands as there is no provision under the special enactment except verihcation report. He reiterated that both the Tribunals ought to have taken into consideration that there is / 5 SKS,J LA.No.I /2025 IN/Allt) CRP.No.3454 OF 2008 no provision under Agricultural tand Reforms Act, to direct any inspector of survey to survey the lands and locate pot kharab iands after the remand from LRAT or High Court. He averred that the Tribunals failed to take into consideration the fact that the Agricultural Land Reforms Act is a welfare legislation and Section 28 clearly envisages that the said Act is having over riding effect on other laws.

7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner articulated that there is no provision in the entire Act and Rules framed thereunder, providing one holding to the unmarried daughtcr, and that as it is welfare legislation, it only applies to major sons, and not major daughters. He pointed out that in the orders passed by this Court in earlier CRPs., there is no order or direction to the Tribuna-l to direct the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records to locate the pot kharab lands. While advocating that the relevant documents to verify the records are placed on record through IA.No. 1 of 2025, he prayed this Court to allow I.A.No. 1 of 2025, receiving the documents thereof, and allow revision petition, setting aside the impugned order.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the 6 SKS,J LA.No,1/2025 IN/AND CRP.No.3454 OF 2OO8 impugned order. It was contended that only after meticulously going through the report, the LRT and LRAT decided the lis on merits. It was asserted that the LRT is authorized to direct the Deputy Surveyor to survey the lands with regard to pot kharab, and basing on the report, the Tribunals considered the application of respondents. It was lamented that no documents were placed before the Tribunals, by the revision petitioner in support of their contentions or to prove their stand, and that being so, now the revision petitioner cannot agitate that survey report was not in accordance with relevant documents.

9. In addition, with regard to the petition frled by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, it was contended that the same does not disclose any fact or reason in support of the application nor does it give any reason for not hling the documents before the Primary or Appellate Tribunals where the matter has been pending since 1975. It was averred that receiving of additional documents in appeal stage is not a matter of right and that the petitioner had not substantiated this application with suflicient grounds. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss I.A.No. 1 of 2025 and the revision petition as well, and to affirm the view taken by both Tribunals. ,,,- - SKS,J IA.No. I /2025 IN/ANI) CRP No.3454 OF 2008 lO. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, the points for consideration are Whether the authorized Officer hled the relevant documents before the Tribunals, if so, whether they were considered by the Tribunals ? II. Whether the LRT is authorized to direct the Deputy lnspector of Survey to hle survey report ? III Whether the order under challenge requires interference of this Court ? POINT Nos. I to III:

11. On going through the contentions of the above aspects, it is to be noted that the order of LRT shows that no documents were filed by either side, as such, the Deputy Inspector of Survey was directed to file a report with regard to 4 acres of land, whereas, the contention of petitioner is that they filed documents which were not considered by both the Tribunals. There is no evidence on record to show whether these documents were filed before the Tribunals. The order passed by the LRT would show that no documents were filed by either I 8 SKS,J IA.No. I /2025 lN/AND CliP.No.3454 OF 2008 side, as such, the Depury Inspector of Survey $,zls directed to file report *,ith regard to 4 acres of subject land. However, the primary cc,ntention of revision petitioner is rhat though documents were filed by their side, the sanle were not considered bv LRT, as well as, by LRAT. In the given circumstan<:es, it is imperative to note that there is no material on record to show whether the said documents werr: filed or not-

12. The order passed by the LRT, would show that the case was taken up for enquiry, the parties concerned were summoned lor conducting enquiry in the case, hou,ever, though the case was adjourned several times, the Advocate appearing for declarants failed to produce any documentary' evidence in support of their claims. Nonetheless, the AuthorDed Oflicer had filed counter on 28.1 1.2003 stating that regarding item Nos. I and. 2, the land covered by hillocks, rocks hill area, and drain nala, under the occupation of the declarants which was already assessed under Rythwari settlement, cannot be deleted from the holding in view of the absence of such provision in the Act, and that being so, the area may be included for computation of holding of the declarants. It was further stated that the area covered under Pot Karab, was liable for deletion from the 9 SKS,.I IA.No. I /2025 lN/AND CRP.No.3454 OF 2006 ) holding and the area covered under the Act. Furthermore, that the tenancy records are to be verified about PT rights and that possession over PT rights on that possession over PT iand. In case of major unmarried daughter, it was stated that she is not entitled for joint family property share, and that the question of determining any property arises only if she has self acquired property of stridhan property and that therefore the said extent cannot be liable for deletion from the holding of the declarants. Other than the said observations, there was no mention regarding filing of any documents. That apart, even in the next paragraph, there was no such mention regarding documents, and the Deputy Inspector of Survey was appointed for conducting survey and submitting report regarding actual area covered by Pot Karab.

13. As observed in preceding paragraph, in the order passed by LRT, there was no mention about documents filed by the Authorized Ofhcer. That apart, whether any documents were Iiled or not, was also not mentioned and basing on surveyor report only, the LRT decided the matter. Now, the revision petitioner filed documents to show that survey report is contrary 10 -..-l'! SKS,J IA No.l /2025 IN/AND ll?P.No.3454 OF 2008 r .t to 1954 pahani, contending that though the same was crucial document, the same was not considered while deciding the lis.

14. The primary contention of revision petilioner is that LRT is not authorized to direct the Deputy Inspector of Survey, to hle report with regard to land admeasuring Acs.4, and that too when there is no petition frled by the declarant to get the land surveyed. In other words, it is seen that without there being any petition for such prayer, the LRT, had suo moto directed the Deputy Inspector of Survey, to survey land. Further, there is no mention regarding the provision of law under which the LRT is authorized to do so.

15. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the LRT, being an independent authorit5r, acting on judicial side, has to decide the lis independently. There is no power to the Tribunal to direct the Deputy Inspector of Survey, to survey the subject land and hle a report, basing on the which the lis would be decided, instead, the ftls needs to be decided on merits. Therefore, it can be concluded that the direction issued by the LRT was not in accordance with iaw, and the LRAT committed error in afhrming the view taken by LRT. 11 SKS,J IA.No.I /2o2s lN/AND CRP.No.3454 OF 2008 ,

16. The other contention of revision petitioner is that the LRT and LRAT erred in excluding one standard holding on account of the unmarried daughter of the declarant. It was contended that under the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, an unmarried daughter, irrespective of her age, is not entitled to a separate standard holding. Though reliance was sought to be placed on principles flowing from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equaiity of daughters, it is well-settled principle that the Hindu Succession Act and the Land Reforms Act operate in distinct legal domains. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of B.Chandrasekhar Reddy v. State of A.Pr, unequivocally held that unless the Land Reforms Act is specifically amended, the statutory definition within it prevails. Consequently, an unmarried daughter, whether major or minor, continues to be considered part of the parental family unit and is not entitled to be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of computing standard holdings. Hence, the deduction of one standard holding in favour of the unmarried daughter by the Tribunals is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Accordingiy, these points are answered. ' 11zoo:1 s scc sas; SKS.J iA.No.l/2025 lN/AND ( RP.No.3454 OF 2008

17. Considering the facts and circumstalces ol the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated

28.11.2006 passed in L.R.A.No.8 of 2OO4 is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the LRAT for fresh adjudication, by taking into consideration the documents that are sought to be received, basing on their relevanc,r,.

18. In the result, IA.No.l of 2025 in/and Oivil Revision Petition, are disposed of, setting aside the impugned order

28.11.2006 passed in L.R.A.No.8 of 2OO4 and rcmanding the matter to the LRAT for fresh adjudication. The LRAT is directed to decide the matter on merits, by taking into consideration the documents that are relevant in the facts of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed To, t SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER Rangareddy, District. '1 . The Chairman Land Reforms Tribunal -Cum-ll Additional District Judge, 2. One CC to Sri GP for Arbitration Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M Srikanth Reddy Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Pr'rr. N V I},PS I HIGH COURT DATED:1 410712025 ORDER l.A.No.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CRP.No.3454 ot 2008 .( !, '-\ ..j I I '\..4 30 0[r I I DISPOSING THE CRP AND l.A.No.1 OF 2025 l-\- (',YMq r q I r olr f