L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 21 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed declaration as required under Section 8 of the Act in respect of the lands held by him. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) decided that the petitioner holds 1. 2593 Standard Holdings of land in excess of ceiling limits. The matter was carried in appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal ). Thereafter the petitioner filed CRP No. 4206/92 in this Court. One of the controversies in that revision was whether the land admeasuring Ac. 22-00 covered by agreement of sale dated 2-1-1971 was liable to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. Since there was no definite finding as to whether it was the declarant or the agreement holder that was in possession of the said land, this Court, through orders dated 24-6-1987, remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to record a finding as to who is in possession of the said land. The Appellate Tribunal in turn, through its order dated 23-11-1991, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for recording a finding on that question. The petitioner had also raised other contentions, such as, inclusion of one of his daughters in the family Unit, inclusion of land in Sy. No. 687 to the holding of the petitioner and the classification of land covered by certain channels.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal, through its order dated 13-7-1992, decided that the agreement of sale in respect of Ac. 22-00 referred to above, cannot be accepted. It has also turned down the other contentions of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed LRA. 12/92 before the Appellate Tribunal.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner raised four contentions viz. , (1) inclusion of Ac. 22-00 of land covered by agreement of sale under Ex. X2; (2) inclusion of land in Sy. No. 687 of Rebala village; (3) inclusion of one of the daughters of the petitioner in the family Unit; and (4) classification of lands covered by Channels. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the finding of the Tribunal on the first three contentions. So far as the 4th contention is concerned, the appellate Tribunal took the view that out of Ac. 16-90 cents of land covered by channels, Ac. 10-31 cents was acquired by the Government in 1978 and compensation was paid to the petitioner and the said extent is liable to be included in the holding. It further held that the balance of Ac. 6. 59 cents is liable to be excluded from the holding inasmuch as it is covered by channels. In this revision, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is challenged by the petitioner.

( 5 ) SRI K. Pratap Reddy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has put forward two contentions. His first contention is that the order of the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained. He submits that when the matter was specifically remanded by this Court for recording a finding as to whether the agreement holder is in possession or not both the Tribunals had undertaken a totally different enquiry without recording the finding. His second contention is that the petitioner has absolutely no right; claim or interest in respect of Ac. 3-65 cents of land in Sy. No. 687 and the inclusion of the same to the holding of the petitioner cannot be sustained. He did not press the contentions which were raised before the Appellate Tribunal. The 4th contention was answered by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the petitioner herein.

( 6 ) SRI G. Venkateshwar Rao, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land ceiling, on the other hand, submits that it is settled law that the lands covered by the agreement of sale are liable to be included in the holding of the owner as well as the agreement holder and no exception can be taken to the same. He

Click Here to Read the rest of this document