THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5431 of 2003 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner, as set out in the annexure to the Writ Petition, without following due process of law. The petitioner and his late father filed declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before the second respondent. They were declared surplus holders to an extent equivalent to 2.6233 S.H. and, after the death of his father, he surrendered an area equivalent to 2.6233 S.H. in Sy.Nos.541, 542, 543, 549, 550, 551, 560 and 561 comprising of Ac.158 in lieu of the said excess land. While the second respondent had accepted land equivalent to 1.1422 S.H., and had taken possession thereof, he had refused to accept the land surrendered by the petitioner of an extent of 1.4811 S.H. and had resorted to suo motu selection. On the ground that the second respondent had unilaterally selected the lands without notice to him, the petitioner filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.7 of 1993 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT) (District Judge), Mahabubnagar contending that he was not a party to the proceedings; and when third parties had raised objections regarding acceptability of the lands, he was not given any notice regarding surrender of the alternate lands. The LRAT, by order dated 30.09.1999, allowed the appeal holding as under: “In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned form No.VIII is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower Tribunal with directions to communicate the reasons for rejection of the surrender of lands to an extent equivalent to 1.4811 S.H. under speaking order and also to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to furnish the particulars of un- encumbered lands, which he intends to surrender specifying reasonable time and in the event he fails to comply the directions within the stipulated time, to complete the recovery proceedings as per law.” Consequent thereto, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 01.11.1999 directing the petitioner to file the alternate survey numbers within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner claims to have furnished, vide letter dated 11.11.1999, the list of un-encumbered lands. The third respondent, in his counter-affidavit, would deny receipt of the said letter and, since the petitioner neither submitted any representation nor had he filed any revised statement, the lands in Sy.Nos.505, 506, 507, 508, 510, 494,485, 490, 595, 496, 483, 487, 488, 491 and 540 of an extent of Ac.65.66 cents were taken possession of on 18.04.2002 and assigned to eligible beneficiaries as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act. In his reply affidavit the petitioner would merely state that, in response to the proceedings dated 01.11.1999, the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 11.11.1999. The mode, in which the said letter was served on the respondents, is not discernible from the reply affidavit. In the light of specific averment in the counter-affidavit denying receipt of any such letter, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that he had served the said letter dated 11.11.1999 on the respondents. Sri J.Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that Section 10(6) of the Act requires the Tribunal to publish the particulars of the land proposed to be selected, in such manner as may be prescribed and consider the objections, if any, received pursuant to such publication, before an order is passed under Section 10(4) of the Act. Section 10(2) requires a notice to be served on the declarant, and Section 10(4) enables the Tribunal to pass an order in case no statement, as is referred to in Section 10(2), was submitted pursuant to the notice served on the declarant. In the absence of any acknowledgment by the respondents I see no reason to accept the submission that the petitioner had furnished the information as sought for by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 01.11.1999. Admittedly in the case on hand no order, as required under Section 10(4), has been passed. It is not even the case of the respondents that publication, as required under Section 10(6) of the Act, has been made. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, cause necessary publication, as stipulated under Section 10(6) of the Act, consider the objections, if any, filed in reply thereto and, thereafter, pass an order under Section 10(4) of the Act in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:24.02.2011 usd