Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1475 (AP)

Lolla Viswandaham v. State Of A. P.

2001-11-17

I.VENKATANARAYANA, S.B.SINHA

body2001
S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE question referred by the learned single Judge of this court to the Bench, is in the following terms:"whether the burden lies on the authorised Officer to prove the majority or minority of any of the family members of the declarant on the notified date or whether such burden has to be discharged by the declarant or the family members of the declarant. " ( 2 ) THE civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Land reforms Appellate Tribunal in L. R. A. No. l of 1993 under the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act ). A contention had been raised before the learned single judge that the burden of proving whether the 6th petitioner was a major or a minor on the notified date is always on the authorised Officer and nnt on the declarant. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in m. Anantha Reddy v. The State of A. P. , The contention of the respondents, on the other hand is that having regard to the provision of Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden would be on the declarant and not on the Authorised Officer. Section 9 of the Act reads thus:"9. Determination of ceiling area :- tribunal shall on receipt of the declaration furnished or information obtained under Section 8, publish the same, and make an enquiry, in such manner as may be prescribed, and pass orders determining whether the person holds or is deemed to hold on the notified date an extent of land in excess of the ceiling area and if so, the extent of land so held in excess as on that date. Explanation:- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, in the case of a family unit, the number of members of the family unit shall be reckoned with reference to the notified date. " ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that in terms of the provisions of the Act, on receipt of the declaration furnished or information obtained in terms of Section 8 of the Act, the function of the Authorised Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act begins only thereafter. " ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that in terms of the provisions of the Act, on receipt of the declaration furnished or information obtained in terms of Section 8 of the Act, the function of the Authorised Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act begins only thereafter. It is not in dispute that in the declaration, the 6th petitioner herein has been shown as minor. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would submit that Section 9 of the Act contemplates an enquiry and when such enquiry is held, keeping in view the scheme of the Act, the Authorised Officer is required to arrive at a finding on the basis of the material placed before him as to whether one of the members of the family is a major or a minor and depending on the said finding, the ceiling limit has to be fixed. ( 5 ) AS indicated here in above, an enquiry commences upon receipt of the declaration in terms of the provisions of the Act. The enquiry under the provisions of the Act would be made with a view to find out as to whether such a declaration is correct or not. A person whether a minor or a major is essentially a question of fact. The evidence to prove such fact is within the exclusive knowledge of the declarant or his family members. The State, or for that matter, the authorised Officer cannot, by any stretch of imagination, have any knowledge of such a fact. In M. Anantha Reddy s case (\ supra), the learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the proforma prescribed for a declaration merely requires the declarant to give the names of the members of the family unit which does not include a major sun. With respect, we do not subscribe to the said view. A declaration is made for the purpose of showing that the lands held by the declarant/or his family members are within the ceiling limits and/or the quantum lands held in excess of the prescribed limit. If the declarant himself does not claim one extra unit claiming that one of the family members is a major, we fail to understand as to on wh at basis it may bo said that the burden of proof could be on the Authorised Officer. ( 6 ) THE Authorised Officer exercises quasi-judicial functions. If the declarant himself does not claim one extra unit claiming that one of the family members is a major, we fail to understand as to on wh at basis it may bo said that the burden of proof could be on the Authorised Officer. ( 6 ) THE Authorised Officer exercises quasi-judicial functions. He merely determines the issues on the basis of the material placed before him. No personal knowledge can be imputed to him. The very approach of the learned single Judge in m. Anantha Reddy s case (1 supra), in our opinion, is based on a wrong premise. ( 7 ) SECTIONS 101,104, and 106 of the Indian evidence Act 1872, are in the following terms:"101. Burden of proof :- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment, as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. ""104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible:- the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. ""106. Burden of proving fact especially with in knowledge:- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving fact is upon him. " ( 8 ) THE aforementioned provisions of the indian Evidence Act, 1872, clearly show that the burden of proof could be upon the declarant and not upon the Authorised officer. The matter can be considered from another angle also. Admittedly, in the declaration made, the 6th petitioner is shown to be a minor. If the declarant contends that the 6th petitioner was not a minor and he committed a mistake in making such a declaration, even then, the burden would be on him to show that a mistake has been committed. Such mistake is capable of being rectified, if the authorised Officer would permit the same. Even from this angle, the burden of proof would be upon the declarant and not on the authorised Officer. Such mistake is capable of being rectified, if the authorised Officer would permit the same. Even from this angle, the burden of proof would be upon the declarant and not on the authorised Officer. ( 9 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the decision of the learned single Judge in M. Anantha Reddy cuse (1 supra), cannot be said to be a good law. It is accordingly overruled. ( 10 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.