IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2870 of 2002 Between: The State of A.P., represented by Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada … Petitioner And: Rajah Vatsavaya Satya Venkata Krishnam Raju & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2870 of 2002 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.1998 in LRA No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-State, was dismissed confirming the order dated 15.10.1994 in LCC No.843, 844/TNI/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner- State and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. By order dated 21.01.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal declared that the family unit of the declarant in LCC No.843,844/TNI/75 was holding an extent of 10.7632 standard holdings in excess of ceiling area as on the notified date. The declarant failed to surrender excess land. Hence, the lands were selected by the Tribunal and possession was delivered to the State by declarant on 15.05.1977. The first respondent herein, who was a third party, filed an application claiming an extent of 47 cents in Sy.No.336/1 and Ac.8.85 cents in Sy.No.336/2 of S.Annavaram village as belonging to him. The said application was initially dismissed on the ground of limitation and on appeal the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. After remand, the Tribunal after due enquiry, held that the claimant was the owner of the said land and he showed the same in his declaration in Ex.A.3 in LCC 562/TNI/75 and inclusion of the land in the present declaration was a mistake. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered re- delivery of the said land to the claimant i.e., first respondent herein under section 12(4) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred appeal in LRT No.1 of 1998. 4. The main contention of the State is that the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim, which was filed subsequent to surrender of the land by the declarant and delivery of possession. In support of his claim, the first respondent herein was examined as CW.1 and marked Exs.C.1 to C.4. 5. Ex.C.1 is the declaration given by CW.1 in LCC 244/TNI/75, declaring that the subject land as part of his holding. Ex.C.2 verification report pertaining to LCC 244 also shows that the Verification Officer found the subject land as forming part of the holding of the first respondent. Accordingly Ex.C.4 order was passed on 27.12.1976. The Tribunal below therefore held that inclusion of the same land, again in holding of the declarant in the present case, is clearly a mistake and it was noticed only after possession was delivered. It is to be noted that the declarant did not surrender the land and the lands were selected by the Tribunal. When the Tribunal committed a mistake in computing the same land in holding of two persons and the Verification Officer also ignored such inclusion, the first respondent-real owner of the land is certainly entitled for exclusion of his lands from the lands forming excess holding of the declarant. It is not a case of reopening of issue, which is closed with the surrender of land, but is a case of rectifying a mistake that was committed by the Verification Officer and also Tribunal. When once it is held that the first respondent is the owner of the subject land and he has duly shown the land in his declaration and the same was approved by the Tribunal as forming part of his holding, inclusion of the same land in the declaration of the declarant is certainly a mistake, which has got to be rectified at any time. 6. In ‘Vangapalli Sudhakar Rao vs. State of A.P.,[1]’ this Court held as follows: “While exercising power under Rule 16(5) (b) of the Rules, the Tribunal or appellate Tribunal does not interfere with the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act which are in the nature of execution proceedings. The provision is intended for rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes due to accidental slip or omission. It is made in the interest of the declarants and it should be interpreted very widely and even at the stage of surrender under Section 10 of the Act or at the stage of computation the Tribunal is competent to rectify the mistakes.” It was further held as follows: “For exercise of power under rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules there is no period of limitation prescribed and by process of legal interpretation it is not proper for this Court to read any limitation into such provision”. 7. It is well settled principle that the act of the court or Tribunal shall not cause prejudice to any one. The impugned order of the Tribunal directing exclusion of the land from the excess holding of the declarant and ordering re-delivery of the same to the first respondent-real owner, was rightly up-held by the appellate Tribunal. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.06.2011 bss [1] 2001(4) ALD 90