HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 713 of 2005 Date: 16-09-2010 Between: Chigurupati Vijayamba ……….. Petitioner and The Sub-Collector-cum-lands Reforms Tribunal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another. ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 713 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take possession of the petitioner’s non-surplus land in Survey Nos.344/1, 344/2 and 344/3 of Vallurpalem Village, Thotlavallur Mandal, Krishna District, without complying with the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Krishna District at Machilipatnam in L.R.A.C.No.147 of 1976, dated 20-11-1976 and without following the procedure laid down under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling On Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘Land Reforms Act’) and Rules 7 and 8 made thereunder, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 31-1A and 300- A of the Constitution of India. It appears, the petitioner filed a declaration under the Land Reforms Act. However, under C.C.No.1459/VZA/75, dated 10- 05-1976, he was declared as surplus holder of 0.0148 Hectars standard holding, which is equivalent to Ac.0.26 ½ cents. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an Appeal in L.R.A.C.No.147 of 1976 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. The said Appeal was allowed through the order, dated 20-11-1976, which reads as under: “This appeal is filed against the Land Reforms Tribunal Vijayawada in C.C.1459/VZA/75 Dt.10-5-1976 whereunder the Lower Tribunal hold that there is an excess of land equivalent to 0.0148 standard holding which is equivalent to ac.0-26 ½ cents in terms of acrage. Even this 26 ½ cts of land the landholder does not like to surrender to the Government on the ground that the total extent of S.Nos.344/1, 344/2 and 344/3 is only ac.7-75 cents within the stated boundaries, but not ac.8-06 cents as recorded in the settlement registers. So, the simple point now to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant is enjoying only ac.7-75 cts, or ac.8-06 cts in the above S.Nos. (2) The learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that the cist is being paid for ac.8-06 cts but not ac.7- 75 cents as the declarant is an illiterate person. He further concedes that the revenue authorities, if on measurement made by survey, find that the extent of land in these three S.Nos. is more than Ac.7-75 cents, the declarant is prepared to surrender. So, the declarant is directed to bear all the necessary expenses for the block survey to measure these three survey numbers to know whether it is Ac.7-75 cents or Ac.8-06 cents. If on measurement, it is found only Ac.7-75 cts, then the declarant need not surrender any thing. If, on measurement there is any thing excess other than Ac.7-75 cts, he is directed to surrender the same. Accoridngly the appeal is allowed.” Now the grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any block survey as directed in the order, dated 20-11-1976 in L.R.A.C.No.147 of 1976, the respondents have included his land to an extent of 0.26 ½ cents in the list of surplus lands and they are trying to distribute the same under “One Lakh Acres” scheme on the republic day on 26-01-2005. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 25-01-2005, ordered status quo obtaining as on that day. From the above facts, it is clear that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal directing the authorities to conduct block survey against the petitioner’s land and decide as to the exact extent, which requires to be declared as surplus land, if any. Therefore, unless and until such a survey is conducted and a decision is taken, inclusion of the petitioner’s land in the list of surplus lands for the purpose of distribution under “One Lakh Acres” scheme is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the respondents are directed not to treat 0.26 ½ cents in Sy.Nos.344/1, 344/2 and 344/3 of Vallurpalem Village, Thotlavallur Mandal, Krishna District, belonging to the petitioner, as surplus land until block survey is conducted and a decision is taken as per the orders, dated 20-11-1976 in L.R.A.C.No.147 of 1996. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 16-09-2010 YCR