IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3592 OF 2005 BETWEEN Kathari Somanna and another. …PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioners: MR. T.S. ANAND Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: - ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the legal representatives of the original declarant. 2. The necessary facts are required to be noted, especially, as this is the fourth round of litigation. The determination with regard to declaration of the original declarant was finalized by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 28.01.1977. On appeal in LRA.No.425 of 1978 dated 04.11.1980 the order of the tribunal was set aside and the tribunal was asked to re-determine the holding. By a further order dated 25.10.1985 the holding was re-determined and that was confirmed in LRA.No.178 of 1985 dated 05.09.1991. 3. The declarant having died at this stage, the respondent issued notice for surrender under Section 10(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act on 26.02.1992. The petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the declarant, filed objections dated 07.03.1992 to the said notice and since the said objections were not being considered, they filed LRA.No.12 of 1993. The said appeal was disposed of by the tribunal directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner’s objections dated 07.03.1992. During that period the petitioner also filed CRP.No.176 of 1992 questioning the order in LRA.No.178 of 1985 where the determination proceedings were finalized on 05.09.1991. The said revision was allowed remanding the matter to the tribunal to consider the errors relating to classification of the land. On reconsideration, the land reforms tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ plea and confirmed the determination of the classification dated 05.09.1991 already made by order of the tribunal dated 12.08.1996. The said order of the tribunal was confirmed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA.No.24 of 1996 dated 31.12.1996 and the petitioner failed to get any relief from this Court also when CRP.No.386 of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 04.01.2001. 4. Petitioners, thereafter, filed further objections dated 20.04.2001 relating to classification of certain lands on the ground that they are not being irrigated fully from any Government source of irrigation. Complaining that the said objections are not being considered, the petitioners filed WP.No.24280 of 2001, which was disposed of on 20.11.2001 directing the respondent to consider the said objections of the petitioners. The tribunal thereafter has considered the said objections and by order dated 05.06.2003 rejected the same. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate tribunal in LRA.No.5 of 2003 was dismissed on 28.02.2005, which is impugned in this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he had raised two objections before the appellate tribunal viz. classification of the lands on the basis of source of irrigation and whether the said lands are properly classified as wet lands and secondly, several lands in Komaragiri, Gorsa and Chebrolu villages though computed as the lands of the petitioners they are, in fact, Inam lands relating to Pithapuram estate and as such, in view of the decision of this Court in ADAPALA SRINIVAS DEVAKUMARA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] they could not have been computed in the holding of the declarant. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the lower appellate tribunal was not justified in not granting relief to the petitioners, at least to that extent. He relies upon a photocopy of the Adangal produced by the petitioners before the appellate tribunal along with IA.No.15 of 2004 and the certified copy of the very same Adangal now produced in this revision along with CMP.No.4834 of 2005. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions carefully, as petitioners would stand to loose substantial extent of land, which is said to be comprised of only Inam land, which are otherwise liable to be excluded. I am afraid, however, that no relief can be granted to the petitioners for two principal reasons as under: 1. The determination proceedings made by the tribunal on 25.10.1985, referred to above, were, in fact, confirmed once again by a fresh order of the tribunal on 12.08.1996 after duly considering the petitioners objections to the classification as well. The appeal against that was also unsuccessful, as per the order of the appellate tribunal dated 31.12.1996, referred to above, and the same was confirmed by this Court in CRP.No.386 of 1997 dated 04.01.2001. To my mind, therefore, all aspects relating to determination are adjudicated by the said order and it is well settled that computation, which has attained finality cannot be reopened either at the stage of surrender or otherwise. 2. Though this Court in WP.No.24280 of 2001 directed the respondent to consider the petitioners’ objections dated 20.04.2001, the aspect relating to the status of the aforesaid land as Inam land was not raised even in those objections, which is evident from the fact that the order of the tribunal dated 05.06.2003 passed in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court does not even refer to the contention relating to the said land as Inam land. It is, therefore, clear and apparent that for the first time the petitioner raised this contention before the appellate tribunal in LRA.No.5 of 2003, which is impugned herein. 8. The appellate tribunal, therefore, has rightly rejected the said contention, as the petitioners never raised the same in the long and chequered career of determination proceedings right from 1977 to 2001. At this distance of time, therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to reopen the determination, which is already settled. I am, therefore, unable to see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 9, 2010 DSK [1] 1978 (1) ALT 475