THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5447 OF 2011 ORDER: The second respondent had filed a declaration under Section 8 (1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (“the Act” for brevity). The same was processed and he was determined to hold surplus land of 0.1723 Standard Holdings (SH). He filed appeal, which was allowed. In consequence thereof, a revised order was passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT) under Section 9 of the Act re-determining the surplus as 0.1152 SH. Thereafter, a notice of surrender of lands under Section 10 of the Act was issued. Aggrieved by which, the declarant again filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT). The same was dismissed. Thereagainst, C.R.P.No.30 of 1990 was filed, which was also dismissed giving liberty to the declarant to file objections. He then filed objections to the notice under Section 10 (4) of the Act beyond the time granted by this Court. The objections were rejected by the LRT. The declarant again filed the appeals being L.R.A.No.53 of 1994, I.A.Nos.54 and 55 of 1995. By order dated 06.03.1995, the LRAT, Kakinada, allowed I.A.Nos.54 and 55 of 1995, which were filed under Rule 16 (7) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (“the Rules” for brevity) and dismissed L.R.A.No.53 of 1994. This Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, filed against I.A.No.55 of 1995. This Court heard the Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the State. After perusing the order passed by the LRAT and giving due consideration to the submissions, this Court is not able to find any error in the impugned order. I.A.No.54 of 1995 was filed under Rule 16 (7) of the Rules seeking exclusion of lands in Survey No.181/2 (Acs.2.54 cents) from holding of the appellant on the ground that the said land belongs to third party and I.A.No.55 of 1995 was also filed under Rule 16 (7) of the Rules to exclude the land in Survey No.226/2 (Acs.5.37 cents) from holding of the declarant on the ground that it is a carpentory service Inam land. The Court below recorded finding on facts on these issues and therefore, no error can be pointed out. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23rd December 2011 RRB