IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5909 OF 2002 Between:- The State of A.P., Rep. by the District Collector, Warangal. …Petitioner A n d Karra Satyanarayana Reddy and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5909 OF 2002 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against order dated 28-07-1993 in Land Reforms Appeal No.29 of 1992, on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT), Warangal, wherein the said appeal filed by the first respondent herein was allowed, holding that the land in possession of the first respondent herein is liable to be excluded from the holding of the declarant, the second respondent. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The second respondent herein was stated to be holding huge extents of land spread over in three districts of Warangal, Karimnagar and Hyderabad. The Land Reforms Tribunal held that the declarant was holding 20.7909 S.H in excess of ceiling limit as on 01-01-1975. Notice was issued to the declarant, but there was no response. Therefore, the Tribunal suo motu initiated proceedings for selection of the lands and passed the impugned order dated 20-02-1992 under Section 10(4) of the Act holding that the lands comprised in Sy.Nos.51/A, 50/A, 57/D, 160, 57/B, 8/A, 52 and 57/B of Nandaram village are deemed to have been surrendered. The total extent of the said land is Ac.15-00. Some third parties claiming to be the owners in possession of the said lands since 1954-55 filed an appeal against the orders of the Tribunal. The LRAT, by the impugned order 28-07-1993 in a batch of appeals in L.R.A.Nos.27, 28, 29 and 34 of 1992 upheld the claim of the third parties and directed exclusion of the said lands from the computation of holding of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred the present revision. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the first respondent herein and other claimants have produced documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-5, which are pahanies from the year 1954-55 to 1963-64, showing that the lands originally belonged to their predecessors by name Karra Linga Reddy, who was the pattedar, and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same from 1954-55 and the declarant has no interest therein. Based on the entries in the pahanies, the learned LRAT held that the lands are liable to be deleted from the holding of the second respondent. The first respondent is the appellant in LRA.No.29 of 1992. One acre out of the land in Sy.No.160 was excluded from the holding of the second respondent and included in the holding of the first respondent. There is nothing on record to show that the second respondent is the owner of the said extent of the land. On the other hand, the material on record clearly showed that the first respondent and his predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent since 1954-55. The LRAT has, therefore, rightly excluded the same from the holding of the second respondent. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th February, 2011 Lrkm