THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRP No.5445 OF 2002 ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 12-08-1991 passed in LRA No.180 of 1991 on the ﬁle of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada, conﬁrming the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada in L.C.C.No.643/RZO/75, dated 12-08-1991, the present civil revision petition is filed. The revision petitioner herein is the declarant. He ﬁled LRA No.180 of 1991 against the orders in LGC No.643/RZO/75 dated 12-08-1991, whereby the Tribunal declared that the petitioner is liable to surrender excess of 0-2065 standard holdings under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and accordingly, form No.VI was issued to him. Assailing the said orders, he ﬁled an appeal being LRA No.180 of 1991 before the Chairman, L.R.A. Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. After due enquiry the lower Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the primary Tribunal dated 12-08-1991. Being aggrieved, the present civil revision petition is filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-declarant that the declarant had not been given any opportunity to ﬁle additional objections and that the lower Appellate Tribunal simply worked out the previous orders and decided the holding by wrongfully classifying the lands. Learned counsel further urged that vide CRP No.4309 of 1997, this Court allowed the revision ﬁled by the declarant and remanded the matter to the lower Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides. This Court also observed that the lower Appellate Tribunal, in a laconic and cursory way and without giving any reasons much less considering the facts and circumstances explained in the case, upheld the objections raised by the declarant and observed that the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh on all the aspects including the objection as to the sustainability of such plea at the stage of surrender. He further urged that lower Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the remand orders passed by this Court in proper perspective and erred in passing the impugned order contrary to the well settled principles of law. He further urged that the lower Appellate Tribunal should have seen that CRP No.4309 of 1997 was allowed and the appeal in LRA No.180 of 1991 was restored to its original ﬁle and that the lower Tribunal further failed to see that after LRA No. 180 of 1991 was allowed by the appellate Tribunal as per its orders dated 30-09- 1993, the lower Tribunal i.e., land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada passed consequential orders on 20-12-1993 as per the directions given by the lower Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 30-09-1992. He also further urged that the lower appellate Tribunal failed to see that the proceedings are under Section 9 of the Act and the contentions raised by the revision petitioner are borne out of the record and tenable under law and that the lower Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the application I.A.No.29 of 2001 seeking permission to take the additional grounds as the Tribunal under the Land Ceiling Act has no jurisdiction to compute the land covered by Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act and when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction as per the decisions of this court reported in 1978(1) ALT page 475, the same can be urged even at the time of execution i.e., surrender proceedings under Section 10 of the Land Ceilings Act. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling, while supporting orders of both the Courts below, urged that though in C.R.P.No.4309 of 1997, this Court remanded the matter to the lower Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal after giving opportunity to both sides, but did not direct to determine the holding of the declarant and that the lower Appellate Tribunal correctly discussed the evidence on record and gave correct ﬁnding and there are no grounds to diﬀer with the ﬁndings arrived at by the lower Appellate Tribunal. Now point for determination is whether the petitioner-declarant is liable to surrender excess of 0- 2065 standard holding and whether the impugned order is sustainable? Point: Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the declarant and his contentions before both the Tribunals were negatived. As per the ﬁnding of the lower appellate Tribunal in its order dated 12-08-1991, the revision petitioner-declarant is liable to surrender excess of 0.2065 standard holdings under Section 10 of the Act and accordingly, form No.VI notice was issued to him. According to the contention of the revision petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to ﬁle additional objections and the lower Appellate Tribunal simply worked out the previous order and decided the holding of the declarant without giving any opportunity and wrongly classified the lands. However, it is contention of the learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling that the declarant is in possession of the Inam lands and enjoying the same and therefore, the said lands are taken into consideration while computing the holdings and he cannot raise the same question for the present. As per the orders in LGC 643/RZO/75 dated 12-08-1991, the declarant was found in excess of 0- 2065 standard holding than the limit. Against the said orders, he preferred LRA No.961/78. The lower appellate Tribunal by its order dated 20-06-1979 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the primary Tribunal. Against the said order dated 20-06-1979, the declarant again preferred CRP 6811 of 1979 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 14-4-1980. In all the above proceedings, the contention of the revision petitioner was negatived to exclude Ac.6.00 of land covered under the agreement. The petitioner, while preferring CRP No.6811 of 1979 against the orders in LRA 961 of 1978 simultaneously preferred revision against the orders of the primary Tribunal in LCC No.643/RZO/75, dated 19-9-1980, wherein the Appellate Tribunal in LRA 77/80 vide its order dated 22-12-1980 allowed the appeal and ordered that Ac.6-01 cent of land of Mattapartu Village covered under Agreement is to be excluded. Against the said orders of the Appellate Tribunal, Government preferred CRP No.710/1981. This Court allowed the revision, set aside the orders in LRA 77/80 and ordered the said AC 6-01 cents is to be included in the holdings of the declarant vide its order dated 21-12-2000. The appellate Tribunal in the impugned order well discussed the evidence on record point wise and negatived the contention of the petitioner. More over, the lower Appellate Tribunal in its order correctly mentioned survey numbers and holdings of the petitioner on clariﬁcation and on computation in right perspective. The petitioner knowing that all proceedings reached ﬁnality, ﬁled the present CRP on the ground of wrong classiﬁcation and arbitrariness. The orders passed by this Court were complied with by the Tribunals below and passed the orders impugned in accordance with the material placed before them. It is an admitted fact that holding of the petitioner was decided by both the Tribunals below and it has become ﬁnal as per the orders in LRA 77/80. Therefore, when the holding was decided and it has become ﬁnal and the points which were raised and determined earlier, cannot be again permitted to be raised on the question regarding the correctness or otherwise of ﬁxation of holding. Therefore, issuance of notice under Form No.VI to surrender excess of standard holdings under Section 10 of the Act by the competent authority in my view is justiﬁed. The impugned order in my view is in accordance with law and is sustainable. Therefore, I see no grounds to set aside the same. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J rkk Dated: 11-11-2011