IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6674 and 6684 OF 2005 CRP.No.6674 OF 2005 BETWEEN Ponnaganti Venkateswara Rao and two others. …PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By the Authorized Officer, (Land Reforms), Bandar …RESPONDENT CRP.No.6684 OF 2005 BETWEEN Ponnaganti Sambasiva Rao. …PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By the Authorized Officer, (Land Reforms), Bandar and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. ASHOK ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.6674 of 2005: The second petitioner in this revision petition, who is the mother of petitioners 1 and 3, had filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam – 2 dated 28.06.1991 purportedly under Rule 16(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming that she is the owner of Ac.4.45 cents of land in Sy.No.188/1 and Ac.3.33 cents in RS.No.226 and claimed the aforesaid lands, as having been exclusively allotted to her in the family settlement after the death of her husband. Further, alleging that both the aforesaid lands are included in the holdings of her son – Ponnuganti Venkateshwara Rao, she sought deletion of these lands from the holdings of her son on the ground that she is the owner of these lands and that they have been wrongly included in the holding of her son. To substantiate her ownership, she claimed that Ac.0.44 cents of land covered by Sy.No.188/1 were acquired and she received compensation under Award No.1 of 1989 dated 15.04.1989. She claimed that she came to know that the Government proposed to take the aforesaid land along with other lands of her son/declarant as towards surplus as per the show cause notice dated 26.03.1991 whereupon she had made the claim, as aforesaid. 2. To the extent of Sy.No.265 is concerned, she claimed that she gifted Ac.0.16 cents of land to the President, Mylavaram Gram Panchayat and sought deletion of that extent. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Bandar, under order dated 23.09.1991 accepted the case of the said third party claimant to the extent of Sy.No.188/1 and directed deletion of the remaining Ac.4.01 cents (after excluding the acquired land of 44 cents) from the holding of the original declarant i.e. son of the second petitioner. To the extent of the land in Sy.No.265/1 admeasuring Ac.0.16 cents separate order was envisaged to be passed later. Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the State preferred an appeal being LRA.No.168 of 1994 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Eluru. Under the impugned order dated 23.09.2005, the appeal has since been allowed and aggrieved thereby, the present revision petitions are filed on 14.12.2005. It is not in dispute that the third party claimant i.e. the mother of the declarant died and now the declarant and his brother figure as petitioners 1 and 3 in CRP.No.6674 of 2005 whereas their mother figures as deceased petitioner No.2. 3. Mr. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made detailed submissions to point out that the third party’s lands could not have been included in the holding of the declarant and computed in the determination of his holding. He placed reliance upon the definition of ‘owner’ under Section 3(n) of the Act and submits that the mother of the declarant satisfied the definition of owner as well as the definition of ‘holding’ under Section 3(i) of the Act and as such, it cannot be computed in the holding of any other person including the declarant. Learned counsel also places reliance upon Rule 16(7) of the Rules framed under the Act to justify that the mother of the declarant had substantial interest in the matter as she alone was the owner and therefore, she had no other option but to approach the tribunal by these applications, as her lands were sought to be proceeded against towards surrender from the lands of the declarant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance upon a decision of this Court in BANDARI RAMACHANDER v. SPECIAL COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT[1] and particularly para 81 thereof to contend that the finding of the competent authorities under the Land Reforms Act by itself are not conclusive with regard to ownership of the lands and such determination is regarded only for the purpose of determination of ceiling area, as such, the decisions of the tribunals of limited jurisdiction do not confer right or title upon any individual. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in SMT. SREELATHA BHUPAL v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD[2] for the proposition, based on para 21, that the vesting of the excess land would take place only when the land surrendered has been taken over by the Government and the compensation therefor is paid in terms of Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 10 of 1961. Learned counsel, therefore, submits on the basis of the above decision that no vesting of the land has taken place in the present case and as such, no prejuduce would be caused if the petitioners’ applications were considered. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the contrary, submits that in the present case the surrender proceedings were completed by 25.07.1991 whereas, for the first time, a third party claim from the mother of the declarant was filed on 28.06.1991. He also submits that it is unbelievable to accept the contention of the mother that she is unaware of the declaration proceedings of her son where both the aforesaid lands form part of his declaration, which was adjudicated right up to the Supreme Court. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the claim on behalf of the mother as third party is only an after thought and in any case, the determination of holding of the declarant, which has attained finality, cannot be disturbed at the instance of the third party. Learned Government Pleader has produced the records of the land reforms authorities on the specific request of the Court. 6. I have examined the record, which includes the application of the mother of the declarant, as third party, as well as the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer relating to Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.188/1. The record shows that 44 cents in Sy.No.188/1B were acquired and in the award proceedings the land is shown to have been registered in the name of Ponnaganti Samrajayamma (mother and third party claimant), Manne Venkataramaiah and Sambasiva Rao. On her request, the compensation was paid to her eldest son i.e. Ponnaganti Venkateswara Rao (declarant herein). Reliance is placed by the petitioners’ counsel on the statement in the award enquiry by the third party claimant/mother that it is ancestral property of her husband, which has come to her share in a family settlement. The said award proceedings marked as Ex.A5 in CC.No.210/V/78 is, obviously, an uncontested award. I have also seen the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bandar dated 23.09.1991, which is the primary order in the determination proceedings, available in the record. It deals with both the said survey numbers, which are claimed by the mother. With regard to Sy.No.188/1, considered under point No.2, the declarant i.e. the first petitioner herein stated that he had sold an extent of Ac.4.44 cents in Sy.No.188/1, Nandigama Village, to one Kilaru Subba Rao and the lands are in his possession and enjoyment. The declarant has mentioned this transaction before the Verification Officer, who has mentioned this transaction in statement No.3 of his verification report. It was, however, computed in the holding of the declarant by the Verification Officer in statement No.10. The primary tribunal recorded the evidence of the said transferee as P.W.3 and the village karnam of the said village as P.W.4 and doubted the theory of sale set up by the declarant. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 he admitted that he was not paying any land revenue and the declarant himself was paying the land revenue and that the transferee’s name is not noted in the village accounts. With regard to the other Sy.No.265/1 also the declarant had stated that 45 cents was given away to school several years back. This was also not accepted as there was no possibility of existence of school in a few cents of land and no documentary evidence was produced. Hence, rejected. 7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, if we examine the proceedings subsequent to the determination by primary tribunal, it would be evident that the declarant questioned the order of the tribunal in LRA.No.871 of 1978 before the appellate tribunal, which by order dated 16.01.1979 set aside the order of the primary tribunal directing the tribunal to redetermine the holding in the light of the observations of the appellate tribunal. Subsequently, a fresh order was passed by the primary tribunal determining the holding of the declarant, that was again questioned by the declarant in LRA.No.122 of 1981, which was dismissed on 31.12.1982 and the declarant preferred CRP.No.444 of 1983 before this Court. By order in CRP, except minor variation with regard to 17½ cents out of 35 cents covered by hayrick, the rest of the order was confirmed. Questioning the order of this Court in CRP, the declarant preferred SLP.No.1927 of 1990, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.02.1991. Thereafter, the surrender proceedings had ensued and at that stage, the mother of the declarant filed the third party claim. The lower appellate tribunal in LRA.No.168 of 1994 dated 23.09.2005 has noticed these aspects and even with regard to the claim made by the third party, the lower appellate tribunal found that the mother has not produced the family settlement or registered partition deed, as alleged, under which she claimed title to the two survey numbers, as above. It has also found that it is the declarant, who is paying the land revenue admittedly. Thus, the claim of the mother as third party was not accepted and the order of the primary tribunal directing exclusion of the aforesaid land from the holding of the declarant was set aside. 8. In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to see any infirmity in the order of the lower appellate tribunal inasmuch as even assuming that the mother, as third party, was the owner of the land, the tribunal had found that the land was held by the declarant in view of the oral and documentary evidence. The basic claim of the third party to establish title was a matter clearly beyond the scope of the powers of the authorities under the Land Reforms Act. The third party, therefore, instead of approaching the competent civil Court for declaration of title, has approached the primary tribunal seeking, in fact, a review of determination with respect to the declaration, which has attained finality. The exclusion of land already computed in the holding of the declarant, which has attained finality, cannot be reviewed, modified or set at knot at the instance of the third party. Further, from the decision in SMT. SREELATHA BHUPAL’s case (2 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the vesting, it would be noticed that the said case arose under the Act 10 of 1961 whereas the scheme under the present Act 1 of 1973 differs from the Act 10 of 1961 and Section 11 of the present Act provides that the vesting shall take place when the authorized officer takes possession in pursuance of an order passed under this Act. The said decision, therefore, does not help the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. More importantly, the declarant himself had pleaded transfer to the third party with regard to the said land and failed to substantiate the same. A completely different plea sought to be raised by the third party cannot now be permitted. The civil revision petition, therefore, has no merits and is liable be dismissed. CRP.No.6684 of 2005: 10. Similar application by the same third party seeking deletion of Ac.2.76 cents in RS.No.266/3 of Nandigama village was sought for before the Land Reforms Tribunal and that application was rejected by order dated 16.12.1992. The appeal filed against the same in LRA.No.231 of 1994 was dismissed on 23.09.2005. Both the authorities have concurrently rejected the third party’s claim. This revision is directed against those orders. 11. The self-same arguments as advanced in CRP.No.6674 of 2008 are also advanced in this revision petition and for the reasons stated above, this revision is also liable to be dismissed. In the result, the civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 16, 2011 DSK [1] 2003 (3) ALT 292 (D.B.) [2] AIR 1990 SC 294