1. This revision petition is by the declarant of C. C. No. P/2051/1955 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli and is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar in L. R. A. 77/1977. In this revision, the four points that are urged are;----
(1) That the lands in possession of the protected tenants in whose favour ownership has been transferred under S. 38-E should have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner and these lands are covered by S. Nos. 620, 344, 332 and 333.
(2) That the lands given to the petitioner's mother under the family settlement and declared by her in C. C. 2067/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli, and accepted by that Tribunal should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner.
(3) That 'pote kharab' lands should be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner; and
(4) That the petitioner's son Surender Reddy was a major on the specified date and as such the declaration C. C. 2040/75, filed by him should be received.
2. Point No. 1 :---- In respect of the lands covered by s. No. 620, a certificate under S. 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 has been issued and the ownership of the lands stood transferred to the protected tenant. The certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act is conclusive proof of that fact, as laid down in the section. So, this land cannot be included in the holding of the petitioner.
3. The fact that such a certificate was issued in respect of the land covered by S. No. 344 also is evidenced by the Faisal Patti for the year 1975-76. 'Faisal Patti' is a public document and that bears the endorsement of mutation of patta made by the competent revenue authority during the course of the Jamabandi proceedings a certified copy of which is produced in this Court. The name of the person in whose favour a certificate under S. 38-E of the Act is issued is recorded as the pattedar and the name of the former Pattedar is deleted. This conclusively establishes that the land covered by S. No. 344 was not owned by the petitioner's family.
4. As regards the land covered by S. Nos. 332 and 333, it was the petitioner's case that they were in the possession of the protected tenants and the petitioner being in possession of more than two family holdings, the said protected tenants were entitled to be declared as owner under S. 38-E of the Act. No doubt, the certificate issued in this behalf was not produced either before the Tribunals below, nor is it produced before this Court, However, under S. 13 of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 , it is enjoined that whenever such a plea is taken, the Land Reforms Tribunal itself should enquire into such a claim and determine whether such land or any part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenant under s. 38-E of the Act and if so the extent of the land so transferred should be excluded from the holding of the owner. For this purpose, the Land Reforms Tribunals which are manned by the Deputy Collectors are also constituted as Tribunals under the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Are) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The Land Reforms Tribunal erred in not enquiring into the question whether in respect of S. Nos. 332 and 333 as well, the protected tenants were entitled to be declared as owners. Prima facie even according to the Land Reforms Tribunal, the petitioner held 4.964 standard holdings of land and therefore the protected tenants of lands bearing S. Nos. 332 and 333 were entitled to be declared as owners under S. 38 of the Act. That ought to have been investigated by the Tribunal and determined. The Land Reforms Tribunal, is, therefore, directed to enquired into this aspect.
5. Point No. 2:---- It was the case of the petitioner that certain lands were given by was of family settlement to his moth. His mother also filed a separate declaration in C. C. 2067/75 and the lands declared by her constitute 0.8037 standard holding. In that declaration his mother had set up the same family settlement and that she (petitioner) was holding the lands as owner in her own right. That case was accepted by the same Land Reforms Tribunal by an order dated 31-12-1975. Now the very same land is sought to be included in the holding of the petitioner once again as being held by him as an owner. The same land could not be held by two different persons in the same capacity of an owner. If the Land Reforms Tribunal felt that there was an dispute with regard to the ownership of the land, it could have enquired into the said dispute and decided as to who among the two rival claimants was holding the land as an owner. So far as the declarants are concerned, there was no dispute among them. Even the Tribunal had accepted the claim of the petitioner's mother that she was holding the land given to her under the family settlement. that order has become final. It was, therefore, not open to the Tribunal to once again include the same lands in the holding of the petitioner. That is not warranted by any provision of the Act. The definition of 'holding' in S. 3 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) act, 1973 only contemplates the inclusion of the same land in the holding of two different persons when that land is held by different person in different capacities and not when it is claimed to be held by different persons in the same capacity. Even if it is held in different capacities, as held by a Bench of this Court in C. R. P. No. 1395 of 1977, dated 23-12-1977 it can be included only in the holding of such person, who is in actual possession of that land and not in the holding of all the person, who claim to hold it in different capacities. The extent of the land which has been accepted to be held by the petitioner's mother and which comprises of 0.9037 standard holding shall therefore be excluded in computing the holding of petitioner.
6. Point No. 3:---- The Pote Kharab land, as held by this Court in C. R. P. No. 899/1977 dated 8-11-1977: (1978-1 APLJ 3 (SN)* cannot be deemed to be 'land' within the meaning of the Act. That extent has therefore to be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner's family unit. The order of the Appellate Tribunal to the contrary cannot be upheld. The extent of the Pote Kharab land can be ascertained from the report said to have been filed by the Special Deputy Tahildar himself during the course of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal or from the Pahhani Patrikas. The Land Reforms Tribunal shall, therefore, ascertain the extent and exclude the same from the holding of the petitioner.
7. Point No. 4:---- It was the case of the petitioner that his son Surender Reddy was a major even by the specified dated viz., 1-1-1975. The Original Tribunal did not advert to this question whether Sundender Reddy was a major or minor, but yet proceeded to include the holding declared by him in C. C. 2040/1975 as part of the holding of the petitioner's family unit. The Appellate Tribunal, However, refused to accept that Surender Reddy was a major. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had deposed that Surender Reddy was born on 4-6-1956 and had filed the Janma Patrika in support of his statement. There was no cross-examination of this witness on this part of his testimony. However, the Tribunal refused to act upon this evidence for the reason that Surender Reddy himself in his deposition is alleged to have admitted that his date of birth was 5-11-1960. But a perusal of the record does not show that there is any such admission. What he stated was that in his school record his date of birth is entered as 5th November, 1960. He never admitted that that was the correct date of his birth. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the Tribunal to have enquired into the question as to when Surender Reddy was born and determined whether he was a major or a minor on the specified date. As laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not uncommon for parents in their anxiety to get an entry made in the school records to show that their children are much younger than what they really are. The entries in school records do not constitute a conclusive piece of evidence. The parties are entitled to show that the entry therein is not correct. The Land Reforms Tribunal shall therefore enquire into the question whether the petitioner's son, Surender Reddy, was a major or minor by allowing both parties to adduce such evidence as they choose, to oral or documentary.
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Land Reforms Tribunal is directed to exclude all lands covered by S. Nos. 620 and 344 and also the extent of 0.9037 standard holding accepted by the Tribunal in C. C. No. 2067/75 as held by the petitioner's mother and the further extent of 'Pote Kharab' and enquire into the other questions referred to above. If in respect of S. Nos. 332 and 333 also, the protected tenants are found entitled to be declared as owners under S. 38-E of the Act, that extent also shall have to be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner. Further, if the petitioner's son Surender Reddy is found to be a major on enquiry the extent declared by him in C. C. 2040/75 also shall have to be excluded in computing the petitioner's holding.
9.TheCivil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal to the contrary is set aside to the extent indicated above; but, in the circumstances without costs Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.
10. Revision allowed.