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
ORDER
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