Dismissed

Jayanarsimhachary and 3 Others v. Ao Land Reforms .Hyd

Telangana HC12 Aug 2010CRP/3913/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of land surrender offered by declarants. The revision petitioners argued that possession by third parties should be presumed as tenant possession. The Court held the rejection was correct as the petitioners failed to prove the third parties were tenants.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs.

Jayanarsimhachary and 3 Others Vs Ao Land Reforms .Hyd — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3913 OF 2000

¶3

Dated:12.08.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Jaya Narsimhachary and others .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad .. Respondent

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Rangareddy District in L.R.A.No.94 of 1996, dated 12.07.2000.

¶10

The said appeal was filed by the revision petitioners herein being aggrieved by the orders in C.C.Nos.P/681, 682 and 683 of 1975, dated 21.08.1996, served on the revision petitioners by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pudur Mandal, on 19.09.1996. The revision petitioners were declarants in the said cases under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the surrender of land offered by the revision petitioners was rejected by the Land Reforms Tribunal, as the lands were stated to be in the possession of third parties.

¶11

In the impugned judgment, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal noted that with reference to the admission of the revision petitioners that the lands are in the possession of third parties, who are not even claiming to be the tenants, the possession of the third parties comes within the meaning of an encumbrance, the surrender of which land offered by the revision petitioners was rightly rejected by the Land Reforms Tribunal. In the absence of any material produced by the revision petitioners to show that there was no title dispute concerning the land offered to be surrendered and as the same was in the possession of third parties, the appeal was dismissed.

¶12

The revision petitioners contended herein that both the Primary

¶13

Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in not accepting the surrender of Survey No.45 of Medpalli Kalan, Survey Nos.155 and 205 of Kadumur Village and Survey No.47 of Kerelly Village on the ground of the said lands being in the possession of third parties. The lands ought to have been presumed to be in the possession of tenants and the surrender of the said lands ought to have been accepted. The lands included in the holdings of the declarants for the purposes of arriving at the standard holding could not have been refused to be accepted and mere possession of the land by the third parties, will not amount to an encumbrance. There is no prohibition against acceptance of such lands and hence the revision petitioners desired the impugned judgment to be reversed.

¶14

Heard Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N.A.Rama Chandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶15

Admittedly, the land in Survey No.45 of Medpalli Kalan, Survey Nos.155 and 205 of Kadumur and Survey No.47 of Kerelly were included in the standard holdings of the declarants. The lands are also admittedly in the possession of third parties and the revision petitioners, who claim that such possession of third parties ought to be presumed as possession of tenants, did not produce any material at any level to probablise such third parties to be tenants. The decision reported in K. Lakshmaiah and another v. The Special Tahsildar

¶16

(L.R.) and anothe r^[1] is a case where the lands were in the possession of protected tenants and surrender of such lands by the declarant was held valid, while dispossession of the protected tenants on the ground of surrender was held to be not valid. It was concluded that lease is not an encumbrance. The principle would have been applicable had there been some material on record to show that the

¶17

lands in question are in the possession of protected tenants and it was the specific finding of the Land Reforms Tribunal that there was no material to show that the third parties in possession are tenants. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, hence, cannot be considered wrong in concluding that the possession of such third parties, the manner of or right to possession of whom was not explained, has to be considered as an encumbrance which can be avoided by refusing to accept the surrender of such lands by the declarants. The revision petitioners have not placed any further material before this Court to deviate from the conclusions of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Even if the surrender of such lands is permissible, and not prohibited, the respondent cannot be compelled to accept such surrender in the light of the statutory provisions and on the admitted factual position, the revision has to, therefore, fail.

¶18

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs.

¶19

___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶20

12.08.2010

¶21

Note:- Furnish C.C. within ten days (B/o) KH

¶22

[1] 1978 S.R.C. 131

Jayanarsimhachary and 3 Others v. Ao Land Reforms .Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanarsimhachary and 3 Others v. Ao Land Reforms .Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch.Yakaiah and Another Vs K.Prabhakar and 2 Others

Javeed Vs G.Umamaheshwar

Khaja Sridevi Vs Md. Osman

Eme Records Secunderabad Vs Hyd Cricket Association and 9 Others

G.Ramlingam Mahaboobnagar Vs A.B B.M Its Managterandn 3 Ros

Masabattula Vignan Kumar Vs Rokkala Sujatha