HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2366 of 1995 Date: August 11, 2011 Between: 1. B. Hanumanth Reddy & another … Petitioners and 1. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal-I, R.R. District at Khairatabad, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2366 of 1995 O R D E R: This revision is filed against the order dated 17.4.1995 passed in L.R.A. No.295 of 1994 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy and Medak Districts at Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners/appellants are third parties and according to them the second respondent, who is the landowner, alienated about Ac.18.00 of land under an agreement of sale dated 13.02.1970 to the petitioners/appellants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally, the Tribunal did not accept the alienation and included in the holdings of R-2 and R-2 preferred an appeal. Thereafter, the Tribunal reduced the holdings of the second respondent after conducting an enquiry. Subsequently, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court holding that the agreement of sale will not confer any title, the Tribunal has suo motu reviewed the order and determined the surplus holding in pursuance of the surplus holding held by the second defendant. Notice was given and proposals were made to take possession of the properties, which are in possession of the petitioners/appellants to an extent Ac.5.00, and Ac.3.71 guntas in Survey Nos.585 and 586. The revision petitioners filed the above appeal and the Tribunal had dismissed the same as not maintainable. Hence, the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants contends that the order of the Tribunal holding that the petitioners/appellants have no locus standi to file the appeal is not tenable. Further, the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioners/appellants are trying to challenge the extent held by the second respondent. 4. The fact that the petitioners herein are purchasers under agreement of sale dated 13th February 1970 is not in dispute. But however, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court the above land was excluded from the holding of the second respondent and in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v . Mohd. Ashrafuddin[1] the Tribunal had reviewed the order and the land said to have been purchased by the petitioners/appellants were included in the holding of the second respondent. Therefore, as the matter stands, the sale in favour of the petitioners/appellants is not found to be valid and they cannot claim any title. If once the claim of the petitioners about the rights in the property cannot be considered, they cannot also say that the Government shall take other properties excluding the properties in their possession. It is a different matter if the petitioners/appellants have not agitated earlier about their rights, but the appellants claimed title under the agreement of sale which was found to be not valid. Even otherwise the second respondent, after service of notice of deemed surrender, challenged the order in L.R.A. No.20 of 1992 and the same was dismissed. 5. Evidently, the petitioners/appellants are again trying to put forth the same contentions raised by the second respondent. The question as to whether the land equivalent to 0.4007 standard holdings was taken or not and as to whether only lesser extent is to be surrendered, is not a question to be agitated by the petitioners herein. The only objection if at all that can be raised is that they are the persons in possession of the property under agreement of sale, but in view of the fact that the rights are negatived and at no point of time they have reserved their right to canvass for taking of different land of the second respondent, the present appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 6. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: August 11, 2011. BSB [1] AIR 1982 SC 913