HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 794 of 2010 ORDER This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 11-12-2009 in L.R.A.No.1 of 2006 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (for brevity the ‘Appellate Tribunal’), Warangal. 2. Admittedly, the impugned order has arisen out of the order passed in a batch of C.C.Nos.2708, RL, 537, 486, 665, 644, 2692, 3814, RL, 940, 945, 944, 943, 939, 942, 938, 941/WRL/75, dated 12-07-1990, passed by the Tribunal (Land Reforms), (for brevity the ‘Tribunal’), Warangal. 3. The petitioner herein is the 1st declarant. There are other 14 declarants. Originally the declarants 1 to 13 filed their declarations under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (herein after called as ‘Act’) showing the lands held by them. Since all the declarations were interlinked with each other, the Tribunal clubbed the same and passed the common order under Section 9 of the Act on 31-03-1979 computing the holdings of the declarants and holding that the 1st declarant (petitioner herein) is holding 268.4116 standard holdings, however, allowed 1000 standard holdings towards his family units, and declared that the petitioner herein holds excess land to an extent as equivalent to 267.4113 standard holdings as on 01-01-1975. Challenging the orders of the Tribunal, the appeals were filed by the declarants in L.R.A.Nos.74, 75, 81, 99 and 100 of 1979, and they were disposed of and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on certain points. Thereafter, the Tribunal again issued notices to all the parties and passed orders on 24-09-1981. The declarants 2, 4, 8 to 15 and some other third parties have challenged those orders of the Tribunal dated 24-09-1981 and appeals in L.R.A.Nos.199, 200, 313, 318, 329 and 331 of 1981were filed. Those appeals were also allowed on certain points and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. Then the Tribunal again passed the orders on 31-08-1986 confirming the earlier orders declaring the holdings of the declarants 1 and 2 that they are holding excess land equivalent to 264.8336 standard holdings and 22.6322 standard holdings, respectively, as on 01-01-1975. They were issued notices in Form-VI to file surrender statements, but they did not turn up. Then the Tribunal, suomoto, selected some of the lands of the declarants and published Form VIII notice. In response to that notice, respondents 2 to 5 have filed objections contending, inter alia, that they purchased certain lands either directly from the declarant or from the subsequent purchasers. Respondents 525 to 527 filed separate appeal in L.R.A.No.10 of 1989 against the orders of Tribunal dated 31-08-1986. The appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondents 525 to 527 setting aside the orders of the Tribunal on 23-01-1990 in part and remanded the case to the lower Tribunal for allotting of one family unit to each of the appellants 1 and 2 (i.e. respondents 525 and 526). 4. The main point is whether those respondents were majors as on 01-01-1975 or not? As far as respondent No.527 is concerned, the appeal was dismissed as he was found to be major as on 01-01-1975. Thereafter, the respondents 525 and 526 filed certain documentary evidence in proof of their age. All the purchasers have also contested the matter claiming that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands and they filed documentary evidence in support of their case. A report was called for from the concerned authorities. The appellate Tribunal holding that there is inordinate delay of 16 years in filing the appeal and that the appellant herein has not preferred to file surrender statements and in the above circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in selecting the lands dismissed the appeal. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal without giving opportunity to all the parties and considering oral and documentary evidence, passed the orders afresh on 12-07-1990. 5. The main contention of the government is that all the points now raised by the petitioner herein were already raised by the petitioner in the previous proceedings that considering oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the matters were disposed of. It is also submitted that the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation since the impugned orders are passed on 12-09-1990, and the appeal was referred in 2006, nearly after 16 years. It is also contended that lower authority has rightly rejected the unregistered documents filed by the petitioner. 6. The main case of the petitioner is that from the date of his knowledge i.e. from 08-09-2006, the appeal is within the limitation. Admittedly notices were not served on several respondents and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed against those respondents. The respondents 163, 301 and 497 died. Appeal was not pressed against them and it was recorded that the appeal was dismissed against those respondents. 7. The contention of the respondents 2 to 541 is that they have purchased the respective extents of lands directly from the petitioner or through their vendor who said to have purchased the same from the petitioner. It has to be seen that all the declarants are family members of the petitioner. Some of the declarants are his sons. All the declarations were clubbed together and common orders were passed. The respondents 525, 526 and 527 are none other than the sons of petitioner. The matter was remanded to the lower Tribunal on several occasions as referred to above. The Tribunal, in its order, specifically mentioned that the notices were issued to all the parties. But the parties did not turn up to represent the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal passed orders on 31-08-1996 confirming the earlier order. 8. Admittedly, Form-VI notice was issued to surrender the lands, even to the petitioner and to another declarant. In spite of issue notices in Form No.VI directing the petitioner herein to surrender certain lands, he did not turn-up. Thus, it is clear that the original orders dated 31-08-1986 were challenged by the sons of the petitioner claiming to be majors as on 01-01-1975 and the petitioner did not raise his little finger questioning the original orders dated 31-08-1986. Therefore, now he cannot say that he has no knowledge about the passing of the impugned orders. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay, I do not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, I hold that the there are no merits in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date: 10-06-2011 KVR