G THIMMA REDDY Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L R
LAWS(APH)-1992-10-45
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 13,1992

G.THIMMA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
SPECIAL TAHSIHDAR, LAND REFORMS Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

A PARVATHI VS. P CHANTI alias CHINNAMMAYI [LAWS(APH)-1993-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
VENKAKKA CHOUDARY Y VS. D LAKSHMINARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1995-3-94] [REFERRED ON 11.]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. M KRISHNAVENI [LAWS(APH)-1999-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
YARLAGADDA VENKANNA CHOUDARY (DEAD) & ANOTHER VS. DAGGGUBATI LAKSHMINARAYANA (DEAD) AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-1995-3-102] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These four Civil Revision Petitions arise under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in brief 'the Act') which came into effect from 1-1-1975 onwards.
(2.)One G. Virupaksha Reddy was the 'kartha' of the joint family owning the lands in question. He had two wives viz., Nagalakshmamma and Sumitramma. Through Nagalakshmamma, he had no issues and thereafter he married Sumitramma and through her begot three sons viz., Thimma Reddy, Hanumantha Reddy and Srinivasa Reddy and four daughters Ramalingamma, Parijathamma, Sarojamma and Sunithamma. Out of the above offsprings, son Thimma Reddy and daughters Ramalingamma, Parijathamma and Sarojamma were majors, while Hanumantha Reddy, Srinivasa Reddi and Sunitamma were minors. Six declarations have been filed by the following family members;
(1) G. Virupaksha Reddy (C.C.No.2442/ALUR/75)

(2) G. Thimma Reddy (C.C.No.2443/ALUR/75)

(3) G. Sarojamma (CCNo. 2446. ALUR/75)

(4) G. Hanumantha Reddy (CC.No.2447/ALUR/75)

(5) G. Sreenivasa Reddy (C.C.No.2448/ALUR/75)

(6) G. Nagalakshmamma (C.C.No.1558/ALUR/75)
All the declarations were taken-up together and after enquiry is being held, the Primary Tribunal by order dated 25-2-1977 held that excepting G. Thimma Reddy who was entitled for a separate holding being not a member of family unit of his father, other declarants were the members of family unit of G. Virupaksha Reddy and allowed only one family holding for all the said persons put together headed by G. Virupaksha Reddy as the Kartha of the joint family. Accordingly the standard holdings held by them i.e., G. Virupaksha Reddy and G. Thimma Reddy were arrived at, and after allowing one standard holding for each of the said persons heading the family units, the balance was held to be in excess of ceiling area, and in the appeal the family units as arranged by the primary Tribunal was not disturbed, but the contentions with regard to some other points were accepted and consequently the standand holdings held by them were reduced and nevertheless it was held that they were excess land holders to the extent of several units over and above the permissible ceiling areas, and that the same was liable to besurrendered. This was in L.R.A. No. 2457 / 77 and the judgment by the said Appellate Tribunal was rendered on 30-12-1978. The said Appellate Tribunal has held that G. Virupaksha Reddy family unit was holding surplus area equivalent to 7.5807 S.H., and G. Timma Reddy is a surplus holder of 2.5269 S.H., Revision was preferred in C.R.P. No. 2038 / 80 and the same was decided on 24-9-1981; but only one relief of deduction of double computation was ordered to be given on verification and the contention with regard to 'pasupu kumkuma' was rejected, while on the issue of divorce of first wife the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal. On remand, the L.R.A. was re-numbered as 77 / 81 and again the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool rendered judgment on 31-12-1987 accepting the contention of double computation and directing deduction of the same, but repelling the contention with regard to divorce of the first wife. These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the said Judgment rendered by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kumool. While C.R.P. No. 605.88 was preferred by G. Thimma Reddy, C.R.P. No. 1336 / 88 was preferred by three daughters viz., Ramalingamma, Partjathamma and Sarojamma. While C.R.P.No. 1683 / 88 was preferred by Nagalakshmamma, C.R.P.No. 1758 / 90 was preferred by Hanumantha Reddy and Srinivasa Reddy.
(3.)Mr. E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned counsel has appeared for Ramalingamma, Thimma Reddy, Hanumantha Reddy and Srinivasa Reddy, while Mr. Harischandra Reddy has appeared for Nagalakshmamma.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.