HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No.4005 of 2002 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 01-04-2002 passed in L.R.A.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal, while confirming the order, dated 13-03-1996 in C.C.No.1801/MDR/75 on the file of the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LRT), Khammam. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the declarant in C.C.No.1801/MDR/75. He was declared as surplus landholder as per the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 28-07- 1977. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal in L.R.A.No.160 of 1994 before the appellate Tribunal, on the ground that he sold away some of the lands computed to his holdings and therefore, those lands shall be excluded, however, the said contention was negatived. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.4235 of 1977 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Khammam, and the same was allowed on 17-01-1979 remitting back the matter to the primary Tribunal to issue notice to all the purchasers of lands as required under Rule 6 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. In pursuance thereof, the primary Tribunal, after enquiry, in its order dated 16-01-1981 excluded Ac.1.5554 (SH) from the holding of the revision petitioner on the ground that those lands are sold away to third parties and held that he is not an excess landholder. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed L.R.A.No.10 of 1981 and the same was dismissed on 05-01- 1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the authorities preferred a Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.83 of 1982 and the same was allowed directing the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Khammam, to consider the case afresh in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in STATE OF A.P. v. MOHD. ASHRAFUDDIN [1]. In pursuance thereof, the appellate Tribunal considered the matter afresh and after due enquiry passed orders on 31-12-1990 allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the primary Tribunal to give a finding on the genuineness or otherwise of the agreements of the sale including the possession and enjoyment of the purchasers. Accordingly, the primary Tribunal took up the matter again and, after due enquiry, held that the declarant is a surplus landholder to an extent of 0.1017 which is liable to be surrendered. Aggrieved by the same, the declarant filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.160 of 1994 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal wherein the appellate Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the primary Tribunal, remitted back the matter to the primary Tribunal to give an opportunity to the declarant to prove that the land in Sy.No.61 to an extent of Ac.17-23 guntas of Munigala village, was acquired by the Government long prior to 01-01-1975, and thereby the same is liable to be excluded. In the order, it is further directed that the declarant shall produce his evidence before the primary Tribunal by making appearance positively on 21- 12-1995 without any further notice. The order also put a rider that if at all the declarant is able to prove that the land was acquired as contended, the primary Tribunal was directed to exclude the same from his holdings, and if at all the declarant fails to prove that the land was acquired by the Government, the order of the primary Tribunal, dated 11-01-1993 shall holds good. After remanding the matter to the lower Tribunal, the case was called on 21-12-1995, but there was no representation on behalf of the declarant and the case was adjourned to 30-12-1995. The matter underwent number of adjournments on 30-12-1995, 20-01- 1996, 06-02-1996, 22-02-1996 and finally on 13-03-1996, the primary Tribunal passed the order in C.C.No.1801/MDR/75. Aggrieved by the same, the declarant-revision petitioner preferred an appeal in L.R.A.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal, and the same was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the declarant-revision petitioner vehemently urged that the Tribunals below failed to exclude Ac.17-23 cents of the land situated in Sy.No.61 of Munagala village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District, from the holdings of the revision petitioner which was acquired by the Government in the year 1965-66 and erroneously held against the revision petitioner and therefore, the orders of the Tribunals below are liable to be set aside. He further urged that a reasonable opportunity may be given to the revision petitioner, by remanding the matter to the primary Tribunal, to adduce evidence before the primary Tribunal in order to prove the acquisition of the said land of Ac.17-23 cents. The learned counsel produced the certified copy of the 10(1) adangal and placed reliance on the same. 4. It is further urged that the appellate Tribunal did not issue any notice to him or to his counsel regarding the date of appearance, and due to his old age, the revision petitioner could not prosecute the matter diligently and could not produce the documents in respect of Sy.No.61 in proof of the alleged acquisition by the Government. 5. On other hand, the learned Government Pleader, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently opposed the said contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the declarant- revision petitioner and contended that inspite of reasonable and sufficient opportunity given to the declarant-revision petitioner, he has not availed such opportunity even at the appellate stage also, and has not taken any diligent steps and no evidence was produced before the primary Tribunal to exclude the Ac.17-23 cents of land. 6. In view of the rival contentions, the point arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 01-04-2002 is sustainable? POINT: 7. The impugned order discussed the connote of the declarant-revision petitioner from the beginning in procrastinating the proceedings without any just and reasonable cause. As per the order in L.R.A.No.160 of 1994, the appellate Tribunal specifically directed that the declarant shall produce evidence before the primary Tribunal by making appearance positively by 21-12-1995 without any further notice. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that even today, the learned counsel appearing for the declarant-revision petitioner produced the certified copy of 10(1) adangal relating to Sy.No.61 which is alleged to have been acquired by the Government and the said document is not a conclusive proof to hold that the land covered thereunder was acquired by the Government until and unless the revision petitioner establishes the same with cogent proof and evidence. Even though the declarant-revision petitioner was given reasonable and sufficient opportunity earlier by all the Tribunals, he has not availed the same for the reasons best known to him. Even the impugned order reads that the declarant-revision petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the said appeal also. Filing of the certified copy of 10(1) adangal is not a conclusive proof to hold that the land shown thereunder was acquired by the Government. It is well known that for any acquisition of the land by the Government, normally a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act will be issued before acquisition and thereafter the award will be passed and after the award, the aggrieved parties will be given opportunity to place their contentions, if any, regarding the quantum of compensation. But, no documents pertaining to the acquisition proceedings were filed by the declarant-revision petitioner even today except showing the certified copy of 10(1) adangal. The impugned order reads that the phani patrikas go to show that the name of the declarant-revision petitioner is recorded as owner of the land in Column Nos.11, and in Column No.16, the names of S. Narayana Reddy, Tejavath Lachiram and Tejavath Vasram, are mentioned as cultivators and if really the land covered in Sy.No.61 was acquired for the purpose of project as contended by the declarant- revision petitioner, the names of the above mentioned persons could not have been appeared in column No.16. 8. Therefore, viewed from any angle in the totality of the circumstances, the declarant-revision petitioner has been dragging on the proceedings without any just and reasonable cause and on the other hand, purposefully dodging the proceedings without any authenticating evidence in proof of his contentions raised in this revision petition. The appellate Tribunal gave categorical findings and rightly upheld the order of the primary Tribunal that the declarant- revision petitioner shall surrender the surplus land to an extent of 0.1017 S.H. Therefore, I see no grounds to differ with the findings in the impugned order and same are sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the appellate Tribunal. No costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 29-10-2011 YCR [1] AIR 1982 SC 913