THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5331 OF 2009 Dated 22nd March, 2011 Between: P. Balanna Gowd …..Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep. by the Authorised Officer, The Special Tahsildar for Land Reforms, District Collector’s Office, Ananthapur. …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5331 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order of the I Additional District Judge- cum-Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur in L.R.A.No.3 of 2005 confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Reforms Tribunal, Dharmavaram in C.C.No.3095/3099/75/RDG, dated 27.07.2005. One late P. Kari Baswana Gowd, his son and daughter filed a declaration under Section 8(1) of A.P.L.R. (COACH) Act, 1973. While considering the holding of late P. Kari Baswana Gowd, the primary Tribunal in its order, dated 23.4.1987, excluded an extent of Ac.34-70 cents in Sy.No.315/3 of Govindavada Village, Bommanahall Mandal, Anantapur District stating that it is non-agricultural land and therefore, it does not come within the purview of the Land Reforms Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’). The order was passed by the Tribunal after taking the evidence of the Commissioner and also the report available on record and that order has become final and there was no challenge against the order passed by the concerned authorised officer. Thereafter, Ryot Union filed a petition alleging that P. Kari Baswana Gowd has fraudulently obtained order of exemption for the above land and writ petition was filed in the High Court and the High Court given directions to the Collector, Anantapur to look into the matter and thereafter, as per the directions of the Collector, Anantapur, the authorised Officer has filed application before the Primary Tribunal contending that the exemption of the above property from the holding of P. Kari Baswana Gowd is not correct and they are, in fact, agricultural land. Thereafter, a notice was given to the revision petitioner who is the son of the deceased to appear before the Tribunal. After considering the material placed by the authorised Officer and also some of the adangals, which were even prior to the date of the notification of the Act, the Tribunal considered that the exemption that was claimed by P. Kari Baswana Gowd is not a factual one and it is a manipulated or a fraudulent exemption obtained by him. Therefore, the Tribunal has given a notice to the revision petitioner to file a fresh declaration under Section 18(1) of the Act as he is the only son and legal heir to his father late P. Kari Baswana Gowd. As against that order, the appeal was preferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. While the revision is pending, the C.R.P.M.Ps. have filed to implead the petitioners, who claims to have purchased the property in the year 1991 under different sale deeds and averred that the order passed by the Tribunal is also not correct. The point that arises for consideration is: (i) Whether the order of the lower Tribunal as confirmed by the Land Reforms Tribunal suffers from any infirmity? POINT:- At the outset, it was sought to be contend that the order, dated 23.04.1987, which was passed by the Primary Tribunal has become final and once it has become final, no review or correction can be made by the authorities and also exercise of the power by the authorities is not legal. In fact, touching on this aspect, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration has relied on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Digambar Rao and another V. Govt. of A.P., through the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Nizamabad[1] whereunder it was held that the power of review is inherent of the Courts when any benefit is obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation. So far as Counsel for the appellant is concerned, he does not want to dispute the proposition of law and therefore, the next question is whether the order of the lower Tribunal in directing the revision petitioner to file a declaration is valid or not. In fact, during the enquiry conducted by the lower Tribunal, a notice was given for re-determination of the land held by late P. Kari Baswana Gowd, the revision petitioner did not appear personally. But, objections were raised on the ground that the order, dated 23.4.1987, has become final. The fact that the property was sold subsequently in the year 1991 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said property was being enjoyed as agricultural land. In fact, even if the original order, dated 23.4.1987, is for a moment to be presumed as based on facts, the subsequent event of the change of the user of the land can be taken into consideration under Section 18(1) of the Act. A further declaration has to be filed by the owners of the property. The persons who want to be impleaded in these proceedings, claiming that they have purchased the property and developed it and they have also filed suits for declaration of their title which are pending before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anantapur. When once there is alteration in the classification of the lands and the alteration takes effect from the date of the notification, the question whether their alienations are valid or not and hit under Section 17 of the Act cannot be decided in this revision. All these questions will only be determined by the Primary Tribunal. As matter stands on the material placed before the Primary Tribunal, it clearly goes to show that there was a change of user of the land and the provisions under Section 18(1) of the Act clearly applies for filing of fresh declaration even assuming that earlier exemption is true. In fact, the petitioner alone has not succeeded the property of his father and there are said to be the wife and 4 daughters, who are also eligible for a share in the property. In fact, at this stage, it is very difficult to consider all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner because these are questions of fact to be determined after enquiry by the authorised Officer. The impugned order is only a notice given to the petitioner to file a fresh declaration. The petitioner can file a declaration showing all the family members who are entitled for the share in the property and also the particulars of the alienation, if any effected by P. Kari Baswana Gowd during his life time and the liability of their execution and this factors have to be only determined by the authorised Officer by giving notice to the affected parties, if any. Therefore, the order of the lower Tribunal as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from infirmity. Viewed from any angle, even if for a moment this exemption is not a fraudulent one, because of the change of the user of the land under Section 18(1) of the Act, duties caste to file a declaration by family members. The revision petitioner can adduce the evidence before the authorised Officer as to the factual position whether the land has become agricultural in character subsequent to the exemption or as to whether the finding of the primary Tribunal based on the earlier adangals filed by the authorised Officer are valid in character. If necessary, the petitioners can be given an opportunity to adduce the evidence. By recording their evidence, the Tribunal will pass necessary orders after filing of the declaration showing the exempted extent by the petitioner on his behalf or on behalf of his family members for the extent of property they have succeeded in the estate of P. Kari Baswana Gowd. If anybody wants to come on record as the interested parties also can approach the Primary Tribunal and put forth their claims which shall be considered along with the declarations filed by the petitioner and his family members. With the above observation, the C.R.P.M.Ps. are closed and the revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO 22nd March, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5331 OF 2009 DATED: 22nd March, 2011 [1] 2001 (6) ALT 226 (F.B)