HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1951 OF 2006 Date:08-07-2010 Between: Vippala Rambabu S/o. Swaminaidu and others …. Petitioners AND Chinthala Atchiyyanaidu S/o. Late Swaminaidu and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1951 OF 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06-01-2006 in L.R.A. No.2 of 2002, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The primary tribunal having come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 is holding surplus land, ordered for surrender of the same. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners, who claimed to be the landless poor and cultivating tenants of respondent No.1, have preferred LRA. 4. The appellate Authority having observed that there is every possibility of the appellants coming forward with a plea that they are landless poor and cultivating tenants of respondent No.1, only with a view to help respondent No.1 from surrendering the lands and protract the matter and that the petitioners are not the landless poor and cultivating tenants of respondent No.1, dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is field by them. 5. The main case of the petitioners is that they are the landless poor and they are in possession of the land in question as cultivating tenants of respondent No.1. Of course, the appellate Authority has observed that there is no proof as to the claim of the petitioners that they are the landless poor and in possession of the land in question as cultivating tenants of respondent No.1. Irrespective of the fact whether they are the cultivating tenants of respondent No.1 or not, when it is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the land as cultivating tenants of respondent No.1, it is the duty of the primary tribunal to give notices to the interested persons calling for their objections, if any, before adjudicating the issue involved in the surrender proceedings. That exercise has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, for an effective adjudication of the issue involved, it is just and necessary to issue notices to the petitioner, who claimed to be the cultivating tenants of respondent No.1. 6. Under the above circumstances, I feel that it is a fit case wherein the matter can be remitted back to the primary tribunal for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, for an effective adjudication of the issue involved in the lis. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned herein as well as the order of the Primary tribunal and the matter is remanded back to the primary tribunal, viz., the Land Reforms Primary Tribunal, Narsipatnam for fresh disposal, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J July 08, 2010 KTL