IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1524 OF 1998 BETWEEN The State of AP, Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada. …PETITIONER AND Yaleti Surya Prabhavathi and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: GP FOR CEILING Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is at the instance of Government aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada in LRA.No.167 of 1993 dated 07.06.1994. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. Learned Government Pleader accepts that the order of Land Reforms Tribunal in LCC.No.1591, 1593/PDP/75 dated 26.10.1993 contains mistakes and confusion with regard to the delcarant in each of the two LCC’s. While it is a fact that the father Narayana Murthy is the declarant in LCC.No.1593/PDP/75, his son Ramji is the delcarant in LCC.No.1591/PDP/75 but the order of the tribunal refers to them in the reverse order and consequently, holds one of the declarants as non-surplus and the other delcarant as surplus. The lower appellate tribunal, therefore, rightly found that on account of the said mistake by the primary tribunal, the matter requires to be remitted back for reconsideration. The real objection of the learned Government Pleader is, however, with regard to the directions given by the lower appellate tribunal while remitting the matter. According to him, the direction to comply with Section 4(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act or the direction to consider exclusion of certain extents on the ground that they are non-agricultural lands etc., are wholly unwarranted inasmuch as the determination proceedings have already attained finality and at the instance of the appellants/legal representatives of the original declarant, the scope of the determination cannot be enlarged. 4. I find some substance in the said contention but it is not necessary to adjudicate thereon in view of the fact that the lower appellate tribunal has remitted both the declarants to the primary tribunal for fresh consideration as earlier ordered. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the primary tribunal to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the earlier adjudication in the matter, which has attained finality. The impugned order is, therefore, sustained but with the observations as above. The civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 18, 2011 DSK