THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1740 of 2006 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 20.08.2005 passed in L.R.A. No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru), confirming the orders dated 16.07.2002 passed in C.C. No.439/BAP/75 by the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Sub- Collector, Tenali. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Land Reforms Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original declarant Ponnam Venkateswarlu. The original declarant Ponnam Venkateswarlu had filed a declaration under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Tribunal, having considered the material placed before it, determined that the declarant is having land equivalent to 0.5534 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date. Aggrieved by the said orders, the declarant preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Guntur and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and determined that the declarant is having lands equivalent to 0.2773 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area. The son of the declarant Ponnam Devalarao, the second petitioner herein, filed a separate declaration in C.C. No.447/Bap/75. He was holding lands equivalent to 0.8090 standard holdings as per the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA No.924 of 1977. He was entitled to hold lands equivalent to 1.0000 standard holdings. Therefore, the shortfall of 0.1910 standard holdings was added to the declarant under Section 4-A of the Act and thus the surplus holding was reduced and it was declared that the declarant is eligible to hold lands equivalent to 1.1910 standard holdings. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and finally refixed the holding of the declarant at 1.4683 standard holdings and declared that he is liable to surrender lands equivalent to 0.2773 standard holdings to the Government. Challenging the said orders, he preferred revision before this Court and this Court, by orders dated 28.07.1980 remanded the matter to the appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. On remand, the appellate Tribunal, having considered the matter afresh, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for its consideration. After remand, the declarant filed an application to exclude certain lands from his holding i.e., Sy.No.287-3 Ac.0-06 ½ cents on the ground that the land was being used as Hayricks, Sy.No.106-7 Ac.0-35 ½ cents on the ground that it was being used as Barn and cattle sheds, Sy.No.301-12 Ac.0-12 cents being used as manure heaps and feathering cattle, Sy.No.287-9 Ac.0-19 cents being used as threshing floor and for hayricks and Sy.Nos.528-1 and 500-1 Ac.1-06 cents and 0-75 cents both as eroded and submerged by Nallamada vagu. A commission was appointed for inspection of he lands. The Commissioner submitted his report stating that the plea put forth by the declarant is not correct. Subsequently the declarant sought adjournments and then he died. Then the legal heirs of the original declarant came on record. The Tribunal issued notices to the legal heirs of the original declarant. They were absent and finally the Tribunal passed orders on 26.03.1992 holding that the declarant was having excess lands in excess of the ceiling area and rejected the contentions of the original declarant. Challenging those orders, the legal representatives of the original declarant filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru in LRA No.66 of 1994 and the appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that no notice was issued to the legal representatives of the original declarant and then notices were issued to the legal heirs of the original declarant and after the case underwent several adjournments finally the appeal was disposed of. The point that arose for consideration was whether certain lands in Sy.No.812, Ac.3-00, Sy.No.603-6 Ac.0-85 cents and Sy.No.603-7 Ac.1-86 cents have to be deleted in view of the agreements of sale stated to have been executed by the original declarant on 10.06.1967. The Tribunal enquired PW.2 – Patibandla Ramachandra Rao and PW.3 – Ponnam Varaprasad and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and also the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla as Ex.B1. It is the evidence of Patibandla Ramachandra Rao (PW.2) that he was cultivating Ac.3-00 of land in Sy.No.812 of Chervu Jammulapalem village on lease from the original declarant and that the original declarant wanted to sell the land and that an agreement of sale was executed on 10.06.1967, but subsequently he could not pay the amount to the original declarant and therefore handed over the land to the original declarant within one year and subsequently the original declarant sold the land to one Kommineni Subba Rao in 1976 and that he has no connection with the land. Similarly, Ponnam Varaprasada Rao the son of the original declarant deposed about the alienation of the above lands. Even according to him since the vendees did not pay the agreed amount his father had taken back those lands. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla, has also submitted a report in Ex.B1, which revealed that the name of Ponnam Annapurnamma, W/o Venkateswarlu was recorded as enjoyer in the Adangals of Fasali 1385 and Ponnam Venkateswarlu the original decalrant has executed a sale deed in 1976 in favour of Singamaneni Kondaiah and his family members and that the vendees have been in possession of those lands since 1976. Thus, the purchasers were found in possession of the lands either since 1976 or from 1979. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that as on the notified date 01.01.1975 the original declarant was in possession of the lands and when the matter was pending before the Tribunals, the sale deeds have been executed and therefore all such sales are null and void and hit by Section 17 of the Act. Thus, the findings with regard to Survey No.812 Ac.3-00, Sy.No.603-6 Ac.0-85 cents and Sy.No.603-7 Ac.1-86 cents show that all these transactions have been taken place after 1976 and therefore they are hit by Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the Land Reforms Tribunal did not agree with the contents of the declarant. The Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal ought to have excluded certain lands which were being used for laying hayricks, cattle sheds, manure heaps and thus when they are not used for agricultural purpose those lands have to be excluded from the holdings of the declarant. It is also his submission that the appellate Tribunal ought to have excluded the other lands which were sub-merged and eroded in Nallamada Vagu. It is also contended that the original declarant has two sons and one daughter and the benefit of Section 4(a) is extended in respect of only one son and no benefit was extended in respect of other sons. It is also his contention that certain grounds which were raised before the appellate Tribunal were not considered. Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Arbitration, supported the impugned orders and his main submission is that once the proceedings have become final no fresh plea can be raised. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Konda Venugopala Raju v. State of A.P[1]. The only point that arises for consideration is whether a fresh plea can be raised at revisional stage. As far as the alienation of lands are concerned, it is clear from the evidence that though the original declarant agreed to sell the lands in favour of P. Ramachandra Rao, but the evidence of P. Ramachandra Rao clearly reveals that he could not pay the remaining amount and therefore the lands were handed over to the original declarant and admittedly subsequent alienations have been made either in 1976 or in 1978 i.e., after the after the notified date. Therefore, the findings of both the Tribunals that the lands sold after the notified date are hit by Section 17 of the Act is in accordance with law. As far as the issue as to whether the other son became major or not and the declarant was entitled to the benefit of Section 4(a)of the Act or not were not raised before the Land Reforms Tribunal and therefore a fresh plea cannot be taken at a subsequent stage. The apex Court in Konda Venugopala Raju v. State of A.P (1 supra) has observed as follows. “Once the proceedings have become final and the landowner has been declared to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling area of the land, then the correctness of the same cannot be questioned once over. The surrender proceedings are in the nature of execution of the surplus land declared by the authorities. The declarant cannot set up a new plea or plead afresh that declarant’s lands are not agricultural lands and are, therefore, required to be excluded from his holding. The reason is obvious that under Section 9, once the order of determining the surplus land has become final, the person holding the land in excess of the prescribed ceiling area is liable to surrender the excess land held by him as enjoined under Section 10 of the Act. At that stage, there is no further provision under the Act to reopen the order passed under Section 9 except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. This new plea set up by the declarant cannot be characterized either as a clerical or arithmetical mistake but is simply an attempt to reopen the order of declaration of surplus land and to have the compensation redetermined on the basis of new facts. It is impermissible under the Act.” As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that certain lands were not being used as agricultural lands is concerned, admittedly the Commissioner visited the lands and submitted his report which goes against the petitioners. Admittedly, there is nothing to disbelieve the report of the Commissioner. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not show me any record that the lands which are now said to be used as hayricks and threshing floor or eroded and sub-merged by Nallamada vagu were shown as such in the original declaration filed by the declarant. There is no basis for the present plea taken by the petitioners. The plea appears to be a new plea. Similarly, the issue that certain dry lands were treated as wet lands also appears to be a new plea. The learned counsel for the petitioners also could not show me how the computation of the total extent of land and the excess land is not correct. Therefore, having considered the entire material on record, I am of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The revision is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Dt. .02.2011 Nsr [1] (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 277