THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9444 of 2010 April 26, 2010 Between: Dasara Atchyutananda Narasimha Moorty, S/o.late China Sathiraju … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9444 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to evict the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 from the lands admeasuring Acs.14.01 in survey No.405/2 situated at Atchutapuram Triyam Village of Pedapudi Mandal in East Godavari District (hereafter, schedule land) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. Petitioner also seeks direction to first respondent not to take possession of the land or in the alternative receive the value of the land and exempt petitioner’s land from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act). The petitioner filed declaration under Section 8 of the Act. Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, passed orders on 19.8.1991 declaring petitioner as surplus land holder. He surrendered schedule land to the Government. The same was accepted. Respondents 3 and 4 who are allegedly statutory tenants of petitioner preferred appeal being LRA No.184 of 1991 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada (LRAT). The appeal was allowed on 17.9.1993 observing that after surrender, the land vests in the Government and the statutory tenancy would be attorned to the State. The petitioner alleges that even after the order of LRAT, second respondent threatened to dispossess respondents 3 and 4 not allowing them to take the crop. Respondents 3 and 4 filed W.P.No.18637 of 2008 and this Court passed interim orders of status quo on 20.10.2008 in WPMP No.24248 of 2008. The petitioner contends that the land has not vested in the Government and, therefore, any interference with the possession of respondents 3 and 4 is illegal. This Court after hearing the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) is of considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. Admittedly petitioner was declared surplus land holder and he surrendered schedule land, which was accepted. When once the land surrendered and accepted, it absolutely vests in the State and by reason of Section 11 of the Act and respondents 3 and 4 became tenants of the State. It is for this reason that the appeal of respondents 3 and 4 allowed to the limited extent by LRAT. The petitioner, who already surrendered the land, has no locus standi to espouse the cause of respondents 3 and 4, who already filed separate writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 26, 2010 YS