http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the learned  Single Judge  of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on August 7, 1996 in C.R.P No. 1917 of 1993.      The  admitted   facts  are  that  the  petitioner  fled declaration in  respect of  certain lands  under his holding and requested  for exclusion  of lands from his holding. The primary Tribunal found that the family of the 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 land  under Section  10 of  the Andhra  Pradesh  Land Reforms (Ceiling  of Agricultured  buildings) Act, 1972 (for 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 land  and therefore,  it is  required to be excluded from his holding. By order dated March 24, 1990, if rejected the  application, but,  on revision before the Land Reforms Tribunal  in I.A.  No.5/90, the Tribunal allowed the application  and   directed  appointment  of  the  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 is 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 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 three acres in survey No.78 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  tow 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

survey No.  65/1 in  an extent  of  5  acres,  66  cents  in Polasayapalli 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.      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  Bhopal  vs. 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 Court pointed out that vesting cannot be said to have taken  place, if  something more  is to  be done before that, Payment  of the compensation is one of the conditions. The lands are said to stand vested from the date the payment of the  compensation is made. Until then, the vesting is not complete. It was held as under:      "It is  apparent that  in spite  of      proceedings having  come to  an end      under sub-clause 3 of Section 7 and      that  the   compensation  has   bee      determined still  the land  remains      with the holder who is enjoying the      benefits  cut  of  the  land  until      action   under    Section   8    is      completed."      The  above   ratio  is   Sreelatha   Bhopal   case   is inapplicable to  the facts  of the  present case.  Once  the proceedings have  become  final  and  land  owner  has  been declared to  be in  excess of the prescribed ceiling area of the land,  then  the  correctness  of  the  same  cannot  he questioned once  over; The  surrender proceedings are in the nature of  execution of  the surplus  land declared  by  the authorities. The declarant cannot set up a new plea or plead afresh that  declarant’s lands are not agricultural land and are, therefore,  required to  be excluded  from his holding. The reason  is obvious  that under Section 9, once the order of the  determining the  surplus land  has become final, the person holding  the land in excess of the prescribed ceiling area is  liable to  surrender the excess land held by him as enjoined under  Section 10  of the Act. At that stage, there is no  further provision  under the  Act to reopen the order passed  under  Section  9  except  to  correct  clerical  or arithmetical mistakes. This new plea set up by the declarant cannot  be   characteristic  either   as   a   clerical   or arithmetical mistake but it timely any attempt to reopen the order of  declaration  of  surplus  land  and  to  have  the compensation redetermined  on the  basis of new facts. It is impressible under  the Act.  The High  Court, therefore, has not committed any error of law warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.