THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 687 of 2005 Dated: 10-06-2011 Between: P.Ramachandraiah and others .. Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep. by the Authorised Officer (L.R.) Khammam and others .. Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 687 of 2005 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in L.R.A.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal dismissing the L.R.A., which was preferred against the order in Land Ceiling Cases Nos.3137 and 3138/KMM/75 challenged by the revision petitioners. One Basava Raju Seetha Ram Chander Rao and his wife Basava Raju Seethamma filed declarations and an enquiry was conducted and orders for surrender were proposed to be taken. Thereafter, as no surrender has taken place, the Tribunal on the basis of the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer sought to take possession of the property and a public notice was given and the revision petitioners herein along with 24 others filed an application before the lower Tribunal stating that they have purchased the properties sought to be taken possession and, therefore, they cannot be taken. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices and has taken up a bona fide enquiry and the revision petitioners appeared through an advocate and the order of the lower Tribunal shows that the matter was once posted for judgment and it was re-opened on 21.11.2001 and thereafter several adjournments were also given but during this period the petitioners did not appear nor their counsel appeared and the documents were also not filed. Accordingly, the objections of the revision petitioners were rejected and as against that order the L.R.A.No.2 of 2002 was filed and the Appellate Court also took the view that in spite of the opportunity, the appellants have not filed the documents and the interest shown by the appellants in prosecuting their claim is not accepted clearly and it is callous. In that view of the matter, the appeals were dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that no opportunity was given to prove the case of the petitioners though there may be latches on their part. Evidently, this is a revision against the order of lower Tribunal, whereunder it was specifically found that the conduct of the revision petitioners is not bona fide and it was also found that they have not filed the necessary documents either before the lower Tribunal or atleast before the Appellate Tribunal when the matter was pending for a long time. Even while filing this revision also, the revision petitioners have not filed the necessary documents to support their claim. Therefore, in the absence of any such material making a plea at this stage for remand by giving an opportunity, does not arise, since sufficient opportunity was given and no bona fides are shown in prosecuting the case properly and I do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower appellate Tribunal calling for an interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 10-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 687 of 2005 10-06-2011 MR