THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 14823 of 2008 Order: Assailing the order dated 02.12.2006, passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nuzvid, directing the petitioner to deliver possession of the lands specified in the schedule, which are found to be in excess of the ceiling area under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, as determined by the Land Reforms Tribunal, in its order dated 02.12.2006, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the land in an extent of Ac.5-80 cents in Sy. Nos. 126 and 127 of Nuzvid village, Doduguvarigudem Area, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishan District, having purchased the same on 25.04.1981 from one Meka Venkata Navaneeta Krishna Apparao, for valid sale consideration, and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. That when the 2nd respondent proposed to assign the land in question to third parties, he ﬁled suit in O.S. No. 399 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, and the same is pending. In the said suit, the petitioner states that the respondents ﬁled written statement contending that the land in question purchased by the petitioner from Meka Venkata Navaneeta Krishna Apparao, was declared as excess land held by him, and that it is a government land. The petitioner states that he is not aware of the declarations ﬁled by his vendor, and that through the written statement, he came to know that his vendor in C.C. No. 1095/NZD/75, ﬁled declarations as excess land holder of 0.9640 standard holding. According to the petitioner, similar persons who purchased land from his vendor after he ﬁled declarations, earlier ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 4288 of 1992, and this Court by order dated 19.11.1992, while refusing to grant any relief, observed that while taking over of the extents of land by way of surrender from the various alienees, they be taken proportionately, and in fact, the same is fairly admitted in the counter ﬁled by the Authorized Oﬃcer, Land Reforms, Bandar, and having regard to this order, the petitioner submits that the respondents without determining the extent of land alienated by his vendor and what is the extent of land that is liable to be surrendered by the respective purchasers, passed the impugned order, for surrender of the lands specified in the schedule, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land in question directly from the original owner, but under the impugned order, the names of the declarants is mentioned as Sri Jalasutram Pitchaiah and Sri Karnati Veeraswamy, but when it comes to the person who is liable to surrender, the name of the petitioner is shown. He states that his case should be considered in terms of Section 12(4) of the Act and not Section 7(8) thereof. He states that he is the purchaser of the land for a valuable consideration from the original owner, and since there is a colony in an extent of Ac.6.00 by name Pratap Narayan Colony, whose inmates have occupied the land therein illegally, belonging to the original owner without paying any consideration, the said land should be taken instead of the land of the petitioner’s who purchased the same for valid sale consideration. He thus contended that the respondents cannot seek to dispossess him from the land in question. Respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nuzvid, ﬁled counter. Based on the averments made in the counter, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner purchased the land in question under a possessory agreement of sale dated 24.05.1981 from the declarant, and pattadar pass book and title deed from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer suppressing the fact that earlier Sri Jalasutram and Pitchaiah and Karnati Veeraswami purchased an extent of Ac.21.00, including the land in question from the declarant under registered sale deeds. In fact, there is a dispute pending between the petitioner and the said persons. The petitioner has already ﬁled a suit in O.S. No. 399 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, seeking directions to the government not to interfere with the possession of the land in question, which is still pending. He submitted that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nuzvid, has passed an order refusing to exclude the lands sold by the declarant to third parties from the determination of standard holdings in C.C. No.1095/NZD/75. The appeals preferred by the declarant were dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Krishna. The declarant also unsuccessfully questioned the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, from time to time in C.R.P. Nos. 6098 of 1978, 2312 of 1987 and 213 of 1990. Thereafter, the Land Reforms Tribunal, issued notice dated 26.10.1991, to the decarant to ﬁle statement of surrender, but the declarant replied to the said notice dated 28.01.1992 stating that notices be issued to the persons who purchased the land for surrendering the surplus land proportionately. Accordingly, notice dated 26.12.1991 were served on the purchasers, namely Jalasutram Pitchaiah and Karnati Veeraswamy. Questioning the said notice, they ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 4288 of 1992, and the same was dismissed by order dated 19.11.1992. Aggrieved by the said order, one Smt. Majjuri Jhansi Rani and two others, ﬁled review petition in W.P.M.P. No. 14868 of 1994, and the same by order dated 15.12.1999 was dismissed. Pursuant to the above orders, notices dated 08.02.2006 were issued to all the alienees to ﬁle statements for surrender of surplus land proportionately, but the alienees did not ﬁle statements, and on the other hand filed application in I.A. No. 1 of 2006 in C.C. No. 1095/NZD/75, praying to withdraw the proceedings, but the Land Reforms Tribunal, by order dated 30.10.2006 rejected the said request of the alienees, including the petitioner. He contended that the case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of Section 7(8) of the Act, and not Section 12(4) of the Act. A public notice in Form VIII as required by Rule 7(4) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 was served on the petitioner and others calling for their objections. The petitioner did not ﬁle his objections, but the other purchasers, namely Jalasutram Pitchaiah and Karnati Veeraswamy, ﬁled their objections, and the same were rejected by order dated 30.11.2006. Accordingly, the surrender of surplus land proportionately was accepted and approved under Section 19(4) of the Act. In pursuance thereof, an order in Form DK, as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Rules was sent to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gannavaram and Nuzvid to take further action in the matter and possession of proportionate surplus land in the presence of the witnesses and submit the Taken Possession Certiﬁcate in Form X duly under cover of panchanama. In pursuance of the said order, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, has taken possession of the land in an extent of Ac.11.14 cents, including an extent of Ac.4.10 in Sy. No. 126, claimed by the petitioner on 05.12.2006. The land having been taken possession, is vested in the Government. The appeal preferred by the alienees, was dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The surplus land taken possession of, was even assigned to and physical possession thereof was given to about 87 beneﬁciaries towards house sites on 30.06.2008. He submitted that the petitioner had received the proceedings dated 02.12.2006 of the Land Reforms Tribunal and was also served with notice in Form XI, which clearly indicated that the alienee should surrender the land mentioned therein, and therefore, he cannot contend that he is not aware of the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The contention of the petitioner that since he has purchased the land in question from the declarant, the same should be excluded from the determination of surplus holding of the declarant cannot be accepted, because it is the speciﬁc case of the respondents that the petitioner has purchased the land in question under a possessory agreement of sale dated 24.05.1981, and that by suppressing the factum of the said land having been purchased by Jalasutram Pitchaiah and Karnati Veeraswamy, from the declarant under registered sale deeds in the year 1982, has obtained pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of the land in question, and that they are taking steps to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Be that as it may, it appears from the stand taken by the respondent, there are disputes between the petitioner and the said Jalasurtram Pitchaiah and Karnati Veeraswamy, who are said to have purchased the land from the declarant under two registered sale deeds. This apart, the petitioner is said to have already ﬁled a suit in O.S. No. 399 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, seeking directions to the Government not to interfere with the possession of the land in question, which is still pending. The contention of the petitioner that he is not aware of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal, appears to be not correct, because from the counter ﬁled by the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was served with notices at all stages of the proceedings, including surrender proceedings, but he did not respond. On the other hand, Jalasutram Pitchaiah and Karnati Veeraswamy, who ﬁled their objections to the surrender, but they were rejected. This apart, in terms of the orders passed by this Court earlier, the notices for surrender of surplus land proportionately, was given to all those who purchased the land from the declarant, and after providing opportunity of hearing to them, the 2nd respondent passed orders for surrender of the land, and in terms of the said orders, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, has already taken possession of the land, and the Government in which the land has been vested, has already assigned and delivered possession of the said surplus land as house sites to 87 beneficiaries. The petitioner, who has purchased the land from the declarant, while the proceedings under the Land Reforms Tribunal, were pending, cannot question the said proceedings, much less the surrender proceedings, that too 30 years after the said proceedings commenced and at about 38 years from the date he is said to have purchased the land from the declarant, and more so when the averments made by the respondents in the counter show that he was aware of the proceedings, much before passing of surrender orders. If the declarant suppressing the factum of the land in question having been covered by the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal has sold the same to the petitioner, then he is at liberty to proceed against the declarant, but certainly, he cannot be allowed to question the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, much less the surrender proceedings. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 18th September, 2008 KSR