K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by the declarant of C. C. No. P/2051/1955 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli and is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar in L. R. A. 77/1977. In this revision, the four points that are urged are;---- (1) That the lands in possession of the protected tenants in whose favour ownership has been transferred under S. 38-E should have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner and these lands are covered by S. Nos. 620, 344, 332 and 333. (2) That the lands given to the petitioners mother under the family settlement and declared by her in C. C. 2067/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli, and accepted by that Tribunal should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. (3) That "pote kharab" lands should be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner; and (4) That the petitioners son Surender Reddy was a major on the specified date and as such the declaration C. C. 2040/75, filed by him should be received.

( 2 ) POINT No. 1 :---- In respect of the lands covered by s. No. 620, a certificate under S. 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 has been issued and the ownership of the lands stood transferred to the protected tenant. The certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act is conclusive proof of that fact, as laid down in the section. So, this land cannot be included in the holding of the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE fact that such a certificate was issued in respect of the land covered by S. No. 344 also is evidenced by the Faisal Patti for the year 1975-76. Faisal Patti is a public document and that bears the endorsement of mutation of patta made by the competent revenue authority during the course of the Jamabandi proceedings a certified copy of which is produced in this Court. The name of the person in whose favour a certificate under S. 38-E of the Act is issued is recorded as the pattedar and the name of the former Pattedar is deleted. This conclusively establishes that the land covered by S. No. 344 was not owned by the petitioners family.

( 4 ) AS regards the land covered by S. Nos. 332 and 333, it was the petitioners case that they were in the possession of the protected tenants and the petitioner being in possession of more than two family holdings, the said protected tenants were entitled to be declared as owner under S. 38-E of the Act. No doubt, the certificate issued in this behalf was not produced either before the Tribunals below, nor is it produced before this Court, However, under S. 13 of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 , it is enjoined that whenever such a plea is taken, the Land Reforms Tribunal itself should enquire into such a claim and determine whether such land or any part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenant under s. 38-E of the Act and if so the extent of the land so transferred should be excluded from the holding of the owner. For this purpose, the Land Reforms Tribunals which are manned by the Deputy Collectors are also constituted as Tribunals under the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Are) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The Land Reforms Tribunal erred in not enquiring into the question whether in respect of S. Nos. 332 and 333 as well, the protected tenants were entitled to be declared as owners. Prima facie even according to the Land Reforms Tribunal, the petitioner held 4. 964 standard holdings of land and therefore the protected tenants of lands bearing S. Nos. 332 and 333 were entitled to be declared as owners under S. 38 of the Act. That ought to have been investigated by the Tribunal and determined. The Land Reforms Tribunal, is, therefore, directed to enquired into this aspect.

( 5 ) POINT No. 2:---- It was the case of the petitioner that certain lands were given by was of family settlement to his moth. His mother also filed a separate declaration in C.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document