Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 973 (AP)

Syed Khaja Ahmadulla Hussain v. State Of A. P.

2001-09-03

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the revision petitioner under Section 21 of A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter for short called "act", aggrieved by the order passed in L,r. A. No. 3/92 dated 4-6-1993 by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein Syed Khaja Afzaluddin are brothers and the 2nd respondent is no more who is represented by his legal representative Syed Chand Bee. The said Syed Khaja Afzaluddin filed declaration C. C. No. 59/pkl/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal and his daughter filed another declaration of her holding in CC No. 60/pkl/75 and it was held that his family unit had lands equivalent to 8. 1481 S. H. in excess of the ceiling area as on 1-1-1975. The revision petitioner also filed a declaration relating to the holding in C. C. No. l23/pkl/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal which is hereinafter referred to as primary Tribunal , for the purpose of convenience and it was held that the said family unit had land equivalent to 1. 0468 S. H. in excess of ceiling area and a contention was raised before the Primary Tribunal that the lands which were included in the holding of his family unit were also included in the holding of the family unit of his brother and those lands should be excluded from the holding of his brother and the Primary Tribunal passed order partly accepting the contention of the revision petitioner deleting an extent of Acs. 21-85 cents and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner had filed LRA No. 3/ 92 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, which will be referred to as appellate Tribunal for the sake of convenience hereinafter, and the following points were considered by the Appellate Tribunal :-1. Whether the impugned order excluding from the holding of declarant Syed Khaja Afzaluddin only certain lands and refusing to exclude other lands also from the holding of the declarant is valid?2. Whether the impugned order excluding from the holding of declarant Syed Khaja Afzaluddin only certain lands and refusing to exclude other lands also from the holding of the declarant is valid?2. Whether the order under appeal is liable to be set aside ?it is recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that inspite of several adjournments the present revision petitioner was not ready in the appeal and he was not even ready though the matter was adjourned as a last chance and on 31-5-1993 there was no representation on his behalf and also on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the Assistant Government Pleader was heard and ultimately/he matter was decided. The Appellate Tribunal after detailed discussion in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and also 8 and 9 came to the conclusion that the appeal was devoid of merits and accordingly the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Tribunal the present civil revision petition is filed. ( 3 ) SRI L. Narsimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had drawn my attention to paragraphs 2, 5, 6 and also 7 and had contended that the approach the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that no further deletion of any more lands from the holding of the declarant does not arise, is totally unsustainable and contrary to the prior orders made in this regard. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the other lands which ought to have been deleted also had not been deleted and the Tribunals below had totally erred in appreciating the matter. The learned Counsel also had stated that unfortunately the matter was not heard by the Appellate Tribunal and the matter was disposed of only on hearing the Assistant Government Pleader which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling, on the other hand contended that the Primary Tribunal and also the Appellate Tribunal had recorded clear and convincing reasons why they are deleting only certain lands and on facts both the Tribunals had arrived at a conclusion that no more lands need be deleted and this finding of fact recorded by both the Tribunals below does not warrant interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act. ( 5 ) I have perused the order of the Primary Tribunal and also the Appellate Tribunal and it is no doubt true that certain reasons had been recorded. It is also a fact that for reasons best known the revision petitioner did not get ready and unfortunately when there was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the matter was disposed of after hearing the Assistant Government Pleader only. It is no doubt true normally in a case of this nature, the violation of principles of natural justice or non-affording of reasonable opportunity cannot be complained of since a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong. But however, this legislation is one dealing with the taking away of the property rights of a citizen and in such a case, it is always desirable to dispose of the matters on merits after hearing such parties only instead of proceeding to hear the matter in the absence of such parties. It is no doubt true that the Tribunals will be helpless when there is total non-co-operation from the parties. However, it is pertinent to note what had been observed by the Appellate Tribunal at paragraph-7 of its order :"there is no justification in the complaint of the appellant that all the lands that were included in his holding were not deleted from the holding of the declarant Syed Khaja Afzaluddin, second respondent herein. The appellant and second respondent herein are brothers. Therefore it is quite natural that both of them have got different plots of land in the same survey number. Taking advantage of this fact the appellant cannot be permitted to plead that all those lands should be excluded from the holding of his brother Syed Khaja Ajzaluddin. Appellant herein and his brother hold different parts of land in same survey numbers. From this it cannot be inferred that the same lands were included in the holding of the appellant and also in the holding of his brother. The Lower Tribunal had considered the matter at length and deleted from the holding of the declarant Syed Khaja Ajzaluddin those lands which were also included in the holding of the appellant herein. I find no substance in the plea of the appellant that some more lands also should be excluded from the holding of the declarant Syed Khaja Afzaluddin, second respondent also. I find no substance in the plea of the appellant that some more lands also should be excluded from the holding of the declarant Syed Khaja Afzaluddin, second respondent also. "as I can see from the nature of the orders made both by the Primary Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal, there are several factual aspects and it would have been more desirable if the Primary Tribunal had given opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce necessary evidence, both the oral and documentary, instead of proceeding with to decide the matter on the strength of the verification of records and the verification report. In this view of the matter, the Primary Tribunal also, in my considered opinion, had not given reasonable opportunity to the aggrieved parties. In the order of the Appellate Tribunal certain sales also had been referred to and it is not clear whether those parties are affected parties or whether such parties also were put on notice and were given the opportunity of being heard before passing the orders. In the light of the view expressed by me above. it is not necessary for me to deal with certain other factual aspects referred by both the Counsel and for the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the Primary Tribunal, Warangal for the purpose of giving opportunity to all the alfected parlies to adduce necessary evidence to the limited extent of further deletion of the properties as contended by the revision petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above discussion. 1 am inclined to set-aside the impugned order in LRA No. 3/92 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal and also consequently set-aside the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal in CCNos. 59, 60/pkl/75 and remit the matter back to the Primary Tribunal for the purpose of affording opportunity to all the affected parties to adduce necessary evidence, if they choose to do so, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.