IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3192 OF 2002

Marella Kondala Rao & Ors.        …Appellants.

Versus

Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, A.P. & Anr.       ..Respondents

O R D E R

1. This  appeal  arises  from  the  final  order  dated

28th of  February,  2001  of  the  High  Court  of

Judicature,  Andhra  Pradesh  at  Hyderabad  in  Civil

Revision Petition No.3326 of 1997.

2. An application made by the appellants under the

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural

Holdings)  Act,  1973  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

“Andhra Land Reforms Act, 1973”) was filed before the

concerned  authorities  in  respect  of  the  land  in

question. The authorities by a detailed order held that

since the appellants were tenants, they were entitled

to retain the land in question. An appeal  was taken

1

against  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  authorities  under

the  Andhra  Land  Reforms  Act,  1973  in  which  the

order  of  the  authorities  was  also  affirmed.

Subsequently, a revision was also moved and by the

impugned  order  the  High  Court  had  set  aside  the

concurrent orders of the authorities and the tribunal

holding that the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh

(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956  (hereinafter referred

to the “Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956”) was only conferred

with the power to determine the question of tenancy in

respect  of  the  land  in  question  and  such

determination could not be  made under  the Andhra

Land Reforms Act, 1973, i.e., the authorities had no

jurisdiction  to  determine  the  question  of  tenancy  in

respect of the lands in question. However, liberty was

given by the High Court to the appellants to approach

the authorities under the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956

for determination of the question of tenancy relating to

the land in question. It is this order of the High Court

which is now challenge before us.  

2

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and after considering the relevant provisions of both

the  Acts  viz.,  Andhra  Land  Reforms  Act,  1973  and

Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956, we do not find any reason

to  interfere  with  the  impugned  order  of  the  High

Court,  as  we  find  that  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants  had  failed  to  satisfy  us  that  the  Andhra

Land Reforms Act, 1973 also conferred with the power

to determine right of tenancy in respect of the lands in

question.

4. That being the position,  we are  not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order of the High Court in

the  exercise  of  our  power  under  Article  136  of  the

constitution  excepting  that  it  would  be  open  to  the

appellants  to  approach  the  authorities  under  the

Andhra  Tenancy  Act,  1956  for  determination  of  the

tenancy right relating to the land in question and if

such  approach  is  made,  the  authorities  under  the

Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 are directed to decide the

same  in  accordance  with  law  after  giving  proper

3

opportunity of hearing to the parties as expeditiously

as possible.   

5. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is

dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order, if

any, stands vacated.

…………………….J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ……………………J. July 23, 2008.    [Aftab Alam]

4