KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU versus STTE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 08-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU 
v. 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
JULY 8, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act; 
1972. 
C 
Ss.9, JO-Ceiling area--Land declared excess-Decision of Tribunal 
confinned by High Cowt-Notice in Fann VI to land holder to surrender 
excess land-Application by land holder before Land Ref onns Tribunal for 
appointment of Commissioner that certain lands were non-agricultural and 
required to be excluded from his holding-Held, once the proceedings have 
become final and land owner has been declared in excess of prescribed ceiling 
D area, then the correctness of the same cannot be questioned over again-New 
plea set up by the declarant is simply an attempt to reopen the order of 
declaration of surplus land and to have the compensation redetennined on 
the basis of new facts-It is impennissible under the Act. 
E 
Smt. Sreelatha Bhupal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1990) 
SC 294, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 10821 of 1997. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
G 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993. 
B. Kanta Rao for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition arises from the Judgment of the learned 
Single Judge 9f th~ Andhra -Pradesh High Court, made on August 7, 1996 
in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993. 
The admitted facts are that the petitioner filed declaration in respect 
H of certain lands under his holding and requested for exclusion of lands 
638 
KONDA VENUGOPALARATUv. STATE 
639 
from his holding. The primary Tribunal found that the family of the A 
petitioner was holding 0.1358 standard holding of land, in excess of the 
ceiling area on the notified date. It was confirmed by the High Court in 
C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993. Resultantly, notice in Form VI was issued to the 
· petitioner to surrender the said excess and under Section 10 of the Andhra 
Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (for B 
short, the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an I.A. before the Land Reforms 
Tribunal, Eluru seeking appointment of a Commissioner stating that 5 
acres 66 cents of the lands are non- agricultural lands and, therefore, it is 
required to be excluded from his holding. By order dated March 24, 1990, 
it rejected the application, but, on revision before the Land Reforms 
Tribunal in I.A. No. 5/90, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed C 
appointment of tl:e Advocate-Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted 
his report on July 17, 1990 stating that the aforesaid lands were required 
to be excluded from the holding. He found the finding that it consisted of 
two hay-racks and a flowing channel (Vagu) etc. The Tribunal considered 
the same and rejected the petition. On revision, the High Court has upheld D 
the same in the impugned order. Thus, this special leave petition. 
It is an admitted position that in his declaration, the petitioner 
claimed exclusion of t'iree acres in survey No. 73 stating that cattle-sheds, 
hay-racks etc. were existing on the said land. The Advocate-Commissioner 
appointed inspected the lands and found no such hay-rack in Survey Nos. 
97 or 73; however, he found a hay-rack, cattle-shed and two sugarcane 
heaps in Survey No. 98. Accordingly the said survey number stood excluded 
from the holding of the family. This fact would clearly indicate that at the 
time when the declaration was filed by the petitioner as on the notified 
date, the hay-racks etc. were not existing in the present survey No. 65/1 in 
an extent of 5 acres, 66 cents in Polasavapalli village, as found by the 
Commissioner. Since they were found existing, it would be obvious that 
after the declaration became final and was confirmed by way of dismissal 
of the civil revision petition by the High Court, the petitioner set up 
hay-racks etc. and sought .to have them excluded. 
E 
F 
G 
The question, therefore is; whether such exclusion is permissible in 
law? The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 
Smt. Sreelatha Bhupal v. Government of Andhra pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 294. 
Therein, the question was as to when the land having vested in the 
Government must be deemed to have been surrendered by the owner? This H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Court pointed out that vesting cannot be said to have taken place, if 
something more is to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.