THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4493 OF 2008 ORDER: 1 The petitioner who is an ex-service man approached this court and filed the present revision petition questioning the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar in proceedings S/2228/75 dated 26.6.1999 as confirmed by the Chairman-cum-District Judge, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahaboobnagar in LRA No.3 of 1999 dated 14.03.2008. 2 Brief facts are that the third respondent is the holder of the land in question and as per the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) she submitted a declaration and after assessing the said declaration submitted by the third respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the third respondent is an excess land holder. Pursuant thereto the third respondent surrendered the excess holding and the Government has also taken over the said land. Thereafter the respondents 4 to 7, who alleged to have purchased the land prior to the Act, that was in the year 1969, approached this court and filed Writ Petition No.6253 of 1990 questioning the said finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer and also the said surrender made by the third respondent. In the said Writ Petition the petitioner herein got himself impleaded stating that he is an ex-service man and the said finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that the third respondent herein is an excess land holder is not justified and if the said land is surrendered as per the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, as an ex-service man he is entitled to have patta by way of assignment. This court, without going into the merits, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the subsequent purchasers i.e. respondents 4 to 7 and the petitioner herein to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer and canvass their rights, so that the Revenue Divisional Officer can pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto the Revenue Divisional Officer heard the respondents 4 to 7, third respondent and the petitioner and he gave a finding that the earlier orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that the third respondent is an excess landholder is right and there is no need of interference with the said order. As against the said order the respondents 4 to 7 who claim to be the subsequent purchasers approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and filed LRA No.17 of 1993. The Chairman of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority at Mahaboobnagar, having heard the subsequent purchasers and the landholder, remanded the matter to the original authority for the purpose of holding a denova enquiry. Pursuant thereto the Revenue Divisional Officer, after affording an opportunity to all the concerned, gave a finding that the third respondent is an excess landholder, but in view of the alleged sale transactions, which took place in the year 1969 and as there is dispute, it refused to accept the surrender of land in Sy.No.187 and in the alternative it directed the landholder to surrender some other land equivalent to the same. Though the third respondent i.e. the landholder has not questioned the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, the petitioner filed LRA No.3 of 1999 and the same ended in dismissal. Questioning the said order he approached this court and filed the revision under Section 21 of the Act. 3 The State represented by its Authorised Officer filed a detailed counter affidavit. 4 It is mainly contended by Sri Ravi Kondaveeti that the petitioner is an ex-service man and taking the services of the ex-service men into consideration, the government issued various G.Os stating that the ex-Service men are entitled to be assigned land by way of patta. It is his further submission that the said Sy.No.187 is a land vested with the Government for the reason that the same was surrendered pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and as such there is no need for the Revenue Divisional Officer for passing another order to surrender alternative land. He also canvassed before this court stating that the respondents 4 to 7, the alleged subsequent purchasers, are set up only to defeat his rights. 5 Heard. 6 In my considered view, this revision as well as the petitions filed by the petitioner before the original authority and the appellate authority are wholly misconceived. In my considered view, the petitioner has no right whatsoever for the lands in question and as such he cannot maintain any of these proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer or before the Appellate authority or even before this court. According to him, he is only an ex-service man and in the event of this land being surrendered there is a possibility of the Government awarding the said land by way of assignment in his favour. The said argument, in my considered view, is purely hypothetical. May be it is true that the ex-service men are entitled because of the services they rendered to the nation. But it does not mean that he has a choice and he can request the authorities to assign a particular piece of land. Taking various circumstances into consideration and also the feasibility and the availability of the land etc., the Government assigns the land in favour of ex-service men. Here is a case where respondents 4 to 7 have been contending that they purchased these lands as early as in the year 1969 and the original authority as well as the appellate authority have gone into the said aspect and in the light of the disputes between the landholder and the subsequent purchasers both the authorities have given a finding that the third respondent is an excess landholder and she shall surrender some alternative land in lieu of the land in question i.e. the land in Sy.No.187. When such is the case it is not known how the petitioner can say that the landholder shall surrender the land in Sy.No.187 and thereafter the said land shall be assigned in his favour because of his services as an ex service man. As stated above, the entire case of the petitioner is purely hypothetical and not on the basis of any truth or reality. 7 For the above said reasons, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that this revision petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an ex-service man and rendered his valuable services to the nation, the Government authorities may consider his case and provide any land by way of assignment in accordance with law. No order as to costs. -------------- 17.03.2010 kvsn