THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.53 of 2009 ORDER: ( Per T.MEENA KUMARI, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dated 15-12-2008 passed in Writ Petition No.24023 of 1997, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed respondents 1 to 3 to give effect to the order passed by this Court in CRP No.2822 of 1987 within three months from the date of receipt of that order. Sri G.Jayaprakash Babu, learned counsel for the appellants- respondents 4 to 9, submitted that originally an extent of Ac.10.61 cents of land belonged to one Sri Pedireddy Satyanarayana was identified as surplus land, which was subsequently taken over by the Government on 24-4-1979 and assigned by way of pattas in favour of ten persons, including the appellants herein during the year 1985, that the same is evident from letter dated 19-11-2008 issued by the Tahsildar; that the appellants herein are landless poor persons and belonged to scheduled caste; and that, therefore, the Government granted pattas in their favour. The learned counsel further contended that the writ petitioners did not file any document to show their title over the subject land; and that if the writ petitioners purchased the property in the year 1985, the said transaction is void in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which prohibits the alienation of surplus holdings. The learned counsel also submitted that the Writ Petitioners, having exchanged notices to the appellants herein and asked for cancellation of pattas granted to them, intentionally avoided to implead them as party respondents. The learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge failed to consider the contents in the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, wherein he categorically stated that alternative lands could not be taken up from the declarant as per the directions of this Court as the declarant died and his son sold the entire landed property including the surplus land and that in the Civil Revision Petition the writ petitioners claimed only Ac.7.35 cents but not Ac.10.82 cents. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any error. It is not in dispute that order dated 5-2-1988 passed by this Court in CRP No.2822 of 1987, wherein orders of the primary and appellate tribunals were set aside and the primary tribunal was directed to serve notices to the legal representatives of the declarant (respondents 3 and 4 in the CRP) to surrender any land other than the extent of Ac.7.35 cents, has become final. The appellants, who are third parties to the said CRP., and claimed to have been granted pattas, cannot be permitted to reopen the issue once over with the disposal of the said CRP. As respondents 1 and 2 succeeded in getting the extent of Ac.7.35 cents purchased by them excluded from the portion of the land offered to be surrendered by the declarant, the pattas granted, if any, in favour of the appellants will have no validity in law. In this view of the matter, while we decline to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, we, however, deem it appropriate that liberty is given to the appellants to make a representation before the authorities concerned for assigning alternative land in lieu of the extent of Ac.7.35 cents belonging to respondents 1 and 2 and in respect of which D-Form pattas were claimed to have been given to the appellants. We also make it clear that if the appellants were given pattas over any part of the land in excess of Ac.7.35 cents, the appellants shall be free to pursue with the revenue authorities to put them in possession of such land. The appellants are permitted to make a representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being made, respondents 3 and 4 shall consider and dispose of the same by passing appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 29.1.2009 ISL/MNR.