Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Mallapally Chandramma - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.represented by Tahsildar, Kalwakurthy - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-76
LAND REFORMS - CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS - SUCCESSION - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA) TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 40 - PATTA RIGHTS - PROTECTED TENANCY - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a widow and her son, filed separate declarations under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, showing their respective land holdings. The Land Reforms Tribunal determined the ceiling area and found that the petitioners held excess land. On appeal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for determining the ceiling area in light of its observations. The petitioners filed revision petitions challenging the appellate tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appellate tribunal correctly disbelieved the will and agreement of sale presented by the petitioners, finding them to be untrue and invalid. 2. The provisions of Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which govern succession to protected tenancy lands, do not apply in this case because the deceased, Chenna Reddy, held the lands as a pattadar, not as a protected tenant. 3. Succession to the lands held by Chenna Reddy as a pattadar is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which entitle his widow, son, and daughters to inherit the property. 4. The Land Reforms Tribunal erred in holding that the widow would not be entitled to any rights in the lands previously held by Chenna Reddy as a ryot.
Issues: 1. Whether the will and agreement of sale presented by the petitioners were genuine and valid. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, apply to the succession of lands held by Chenna Reddy as a pattadar. 3. Whether the widow is entitled to inherit the lands held by Chenna Reddy as a pattadar under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate tribunal's findings regarding the genuineness and validity of the will and agreement of sale are based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be interfered with. 2. The rules relating to the grant of pattadari rights in non-khalsa villages, framed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, provide that persons holding jagir land and paying revenue directly to the jagirdars shall be deemed pattadars, and their rights and liabilities shall be the same as those of pattadars of khalsa lands. Therefore, Chenna Reddy's rights in the lands held by him as a ryot in the non-khalsa jagir village were enlarged to those of a pattadar, and succession to those lands is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow, son, and daughters of Chenna Reddy are his heirs to the lands held by him as a pattadar.
Final Decision: The revision petitions are partly allowed. The orders of the appellate tribunal and the Land Reforms Tribunal are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Land Reforms Tribunal for determination of the holdings of the declarants in accordance with the law and the observations and findings of the High Court. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions are filed under section 21 of the andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act, against the common order of the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, in LRA. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1976, partly allowing the appeals and remanding the matter to the Land Reforms tribunal, Mahabubnagar, for determining the ceiling area of the petitioners in the light of the observations contained in the said order.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows:- The petitioner in CRP 884/1976 and the petitioner in CRP. 885/1976 are the widow and son of one Mallapalli Chenna Reddy, residents of Gattu Ippalapalli village Kalwakurthy taluk, Mahabubnagar District. They filed separate declarations under section 8 of the Act, showing that the widow held the lands of the extent of Ac. 71-07 cents and the son Ac. 69-09 cents. In the son s declaration, the family unit is shown as consisting of himself, his wife and two minor sons. The widow showed her two grandsons and her husband s brother as members of the family unit. It is not disputed the grandsons and her husband s brother do not form part of the family unit. The widow is not a member of the family unit but she is holding the lands as an individual. Among the lands possessed by the family, the lands bearing survey Nos. 77, 121, 122, 123 and 124 totalling an extent of Ac. 30-14 cents are ancestral properties and patta lands of Chenna Reddy, who died in 1963. In as much as he died in 1963, after coming into force of the hiudu Succession Act, the widow will be entitled to a l/4th share and the son to a 3/4th share in the said properties. The properties were wrongly mutated in the year 1974 solely in the name of the widow. Chenna Reddy was also in possession of the lands bearing survey Nos. 48, 49, 59, 65. 66, 68, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 107 of the extent of Ac. 108-00 of Ghattu Ippalapalli, village with protected tenancy rights. The widow set up a plea that half of the extent of the ancestral lands in survey Nos. 121, 122, 123 and 124 was alienated by her husband Chenna Reddi during his life time in favour of Ruchoji and Ramulu under an agreement of sale and they were put in possession of the same, but without any document. The Tribunal did not accept this alienation. With regard to the lands in which chenna Reddi, had protected tenancy rights, the Land Reforms Tribunal he d that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the son alone would be entitled to the lands and the widow would not be entitled to any property. Accordingly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the aggregate of the lands held by the widow and the son came to 3,0395, that the widow was holding 1. 3449 and the sun 0. 5676 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area and that the total excess land to be surrendered by them was 1. 9125 standard holding. Against the said order, appeals were preferred to the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal.
( 3 ) IN the appeals, the following contentions were urged:- (1) Chenna Reddy, had executed a will mentioning therein that he had disposed of half of his ancestral lands during hislife time under an agreement of sale, in favour of Buchoji and Ramulu and gave the rest of his land to his widow Chandramma under a will and that under the will, the widow is exclusively entitled to the patta lands. (2) The Land Reforms Tribunal erred in not applying the provisions of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 with regard to the lands in which Chenna Reddy had protected tenancy rights and that under the provisions of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, the widow will be entitled to a share in the said properties. (3) The Land Reforms Tribunal should have excluded the potkarab area which is shown in the revenue records as waste and unfit for cultivation. (4) The calculation made by the Tribunal in fixing the standard holding of both the declarants was wrong. The L
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
