HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4028 OF 2010 DATE:09-09-2010 BETWEEN Kunisetty Pratapa Reddy …Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by its Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, East Godavari District. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4028 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act is filed by the petitioner to revise the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada made in L.R.A.no.17 of 2002, dated 11.8.2008. The father of the petitioner filed declaration in L.C.C.No.1295 and 1383/Rmm/75 when the petitioner was minor. On filing such declaration, the Land Reforms Tribunal by its order, dated 12.1.1977 determined the holding of the family unit of the petitioner’s father at 1.8883 standard holding in excess by clubbing both the L.C.Cs. and later issued Form-VI notice on 21.9.1992 requiring the declarant-father of the petitioner to surrender the excess land. Aggrieved thereby, father of the petitioner filed L.R.A.No.46 of 1992 which was allowed remitting the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal for re-determining the holding of the family unit of the declarant in the light of the directions given in L.R.A.No.981 of 1977 which was allowed on 10.11.1978. After the remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed an order under Section 10(4) of the Act and issued Form-VI notice and served the same on the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner carried the matter in the impugned appeal contending that the lower Tribunal failed to follow the mandatory provisions contemplated under Section 10(2) of the Act which mandates clear 15 days notice for surrendering excess land, but in the instant case, the Form-VI notice, dated 6.6.2002 directing him to surrender of excess land by 25.6.2002 was received by him on 20.6.2002, which is short of clear 15 days notice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The lower appellate Tribunal has rightly not accepted the said contention for the reason that in the notice itself it is clearly mentioned that statement showing the particulars of the land proposed to surrender should be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice but not by 25.6.2002. Further even by the date of passing of the order under appeal on 22.8.2002, petitioner has not filed any statement showing the particulars of the land which is proposed to be surrendered and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that the petitioner was called upon to file a statement surrendering the excess land within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. If that be the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mandatory provision of issuing notice namely, giving clear 15 days notice has not been followed, do not merit any consideration. No illegality is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The Revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2010 Tsr.