THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2339 OF 2003 DATED: 10-02-2011. Between S.Suranna and another … Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by The Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2339 OF 2003 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 09-01-2003, in L.R.A.No.4 of 2001, on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, in confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, East Godavari, dated 28-10-1995 2. 1st petitioner who claims to be the tenant filed an application for deletion of lands, which are under his cultivation from the land holding of declarant. The said application was dismissed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada on 28-10-1995 holding that the deceased-declarant is held to be surplus holder in pursuance of the order passed by Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry in L.R.A.No.155 of 1978 , dated 15-07-1981, which has become final. On appeal, the said order was confirmed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 1st petitioner is a tenant, that the verification report filed by the verification officer would reveal that the 1st petitioner has filed a declaration showing that he was a tenant in respect of certain extent of land and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for appeals contended that the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal has become final as the said order, which was challenged before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was dismissed and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 5. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner has not filed a single document to show that he filed a declaration showing that he was a tenant in respect of lands of declarant. The verification report filed by the verification officer would go to show that the petitioner was shown as tenant in respect of certain extent of land and the same has to be excluded from the holding of the original landlord/declarant. Admittedly, the declarant was declared as surplus landholder by competent authority in LRA NO.155 of 1978, dated 15-07-1982 and the same has become final. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the deceased-1st petitioner is said to be the tenant in respect of some of the lands under cultivation belonging to the original declarant. The verification report is not filed into Court. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 10-02-2011 Hsd