THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2533 of 2003 December 10, 2010 Between: Shaik Abdul Rahim, S/o.Late Shaik Junaid … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer (LR), Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2533 of 2003 ORDER: Petitioner’s father, Shaik Junaid, filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. By an order dated 25.2.1993, first respondent-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar (LRT), in C.C.No.1658/KNR/75, declared Shaik Junaid as surplus land holder to the extent of 0.2730 Standard Holdings (SHs). In subsequent proceedings under Section 10 of the Act and Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (the Rules), by an order dated 01.9.1994, the surrender of the lands in S.No.1222 (Acs.5.68), 1223 (Acs.3.75) and 1224 (Acs.4.22) was accepted. Under the cover of Panchanama dated 16.9.1994, the land was taken possession by the Government. An extent of Acs.3.85 in S.No.1224 was given advance possession to the Department of Physically Handicapped for construction of residential school. It appears that the declarant filed a revision before this Court. The same being C.R.P.No.2224 of 1993 was disposed of on 10.4.2000 directing the LRT to consider the potekharab if any and pass orders. By an order dated 18.2.2002, an extent of Acs.3.02 from S.Nos.1222, 1223 and 1224 was deleted from the holding of the declarant directing retransfer of the same. It appears that instead of typing S.No.1224, by mistake it was typed as S.No.1222. Though the correction was made in the office copy, the same was not carried out in the original order. Therefore in exercise of power under Rule 16(5) of the Rules, first respondent directed the MRO to retransfer Acs.3.02 in S.No.1222 to the declarant. This is assailed in the writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioner made two submissions: that when the appeal is pending exercise of power under Rule 16(5) of the Rules is not warranted; and secondly that the respondent failed to issue notice to petitioner. Rule 16(5) of the Rules reads as under. 16. Nature of proceedings before the Tribunal:- (5) The Revenue Divisional officer, the District Collector, Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the power:- (a) to make orders incidental or ancillary to the decisions of such officer or authority; (b) to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, either of its own motion or on the application of the parties. There is nothing to suggest that pendency of appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal precludes exercise of powers under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules. Further it is only correction of arithmetical error. In the considered opinion of this Court, issue of notice for such correction does not arise. The petitioner entitled to get back the land. The impugned order is therefore unassailable. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 10, 2010. YS