HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTA RAO W.A.NO. 1210 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant is the un-successful petitioner, who by way of Writ Petition sought to assail the notice dated 8.7.2008, wherein and whereby the appellant surrendered his land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised certain contentions, the learned Single Judge did not ﬁnd in favour of the petitioner. He further held that the petitioner was not supplied with necessary documents and he was directed to make an application before the authorities concerned for supply of necessary documents, if any, and on such application, the authorities were directed to furnish the same in accordance with law. Hence, the present appeal. Having heard the learned counsel and also on perusing the material on record, it is seen that admittedly declaration was ﬁled in the year 1976 and the ex-parte order was passed by the authorities on 12.5.2007. The learned Government Pleader submits after obtaining instructions, that subsequent to conversion of major portion of the ayakut land of Nagarjuna Sagar, the lands were necessarily treated as wet lands and therefore, the holding was increased, as a result the appellant will automatically become a surplus land holder and therefore, notice has been given for surrender of the land. It is clear from the record, that even though such lands have been brought under cultivation, admittedly, no notice was issued nor any enquiry has been conducted under Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (for short “the Act”). The provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was brought into force on 1-1-1975 by way of a notiﬁcation as contemplated under Sub-Clause (3) of Section 1 thereof. The object of the said Act was to ﬁx the ceiling on agricultural holdings and to take over the surplus land, if any, found and make use of such surplus land for the purposes as contemplated. The limit of ceiling area as deﬁned in Sub-Clause (c)of Section 3 and as contemplated under Section 4 of the said Act is to an extent of land equal to one Standard Holding in case of family unit. It is not necessary to delve into the composition of the family unit and other beneﬁts as extended to under the various situations including under Section 4 (a) of the said Act, which has been amended by Act 10 of 1977 giving eﬀect from 1-1-1975. The Standard Holding of diﬀerent classes of land and computations etc., are also provided for under the Act. Thus, the prescription of the ceiling limit and the determination thereof is as existing on the date of the enforcement of Act i.e., 1-1-1975 and for the said purpose the tribunals are constituted. Under Section (8) of the said Act however person holding over and above the ceiling limit has to ﬁle a declaration, which will be enquired into and the ceiling area to which such person is entitled to is determined and that follows the procedure for taking over of the surplus land. All these contemplate due notice and opportunities to the declarants in the enquiries. Once such surplus area is determined and found by the tribunals as constituted there under and become ﬁnal after exhausting all the remedies in the hierarchy of the tribunal, the land vests in the government. However, on such determination of entitlement of the holding by the individual as on 1-1-1975, if a situation arising either by transfer or otherwise by increase of the holding, the said Act provides for a procedure for ﬁling declaration afresh in respect of such future acquisitions under Section 18 of the said Act, and there upon once again a fresh enquiry has to be conducted and fresh determination has to be arrived at to see if such person is holding any surplus land and consequently take appropriate steps. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the law contemplates for determination of the holding to the extent of their entitlement ﬁrstly as on 1-1-1975 and later as and when any future acquisition by whatsoever mode is brought in. In the present case, admittedly, as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that after obtaining due instructions from the concerned authorities and consequent to the initial ﬁling of the declaration by the appellant/petitioner herein, the tribunal has passed the orders as long back as on 12-5-1976 by holding that the appellant/petitioner herein is a non-surplus holder. Hence, there were no steps taken initially at this stage to seek for any surrender and there was no surplus land declared. However, it has been pointed out that it is only when the land, which has been included in the holding of the appellant/petitioner herein subsequently, brought under Ayacut of the Nagarjunasagar and thereby increasing the Standard Holding and also resulting in the changed nature of classiﬁcation, and therefore by taking into account such changed classiﬁcation and Standard Holding, the appellant declarant had become surplus land holder and it was held that he is holding excess to an extent of 0.8677 Standard Holding, and therefore, he was called upon by the tribunal by order dated 12-5-2007 to surrender the land. From these admitted facts and the proceedings as stated by both sides, it is quite evident that the initial order passed on 20-5- 1976 holding that the appellant is not a surplus holder has become ﬁnal, and it is only due to the subsequent reason and after the lands came under the Ayacut of a project, the authorities sought to make the determination afresh by taking note of change of classiﬁcation and the Standard Holding. However, surprisingly, the appellant had no notice of whatsoever nature in this regard nor any enquiry was conducted. There is also no explanation as to why fresh proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act by due notice and enquiry are not taken up and followed. Merely, because there is a changed circumstance like the one as pointed out on behalf of the respondents, that itself would not vest any powers on the authorities to suo motu take upon themselves to determine and proceed for surrender. Necessarily, it contemplates an enquiry proceeded by a notice and opportunity. No doubt, in case of any such variation, the appellant is under an obligation to ﬁle a fresh declaration under Section 18 of the said Act. However, failure on his part is not enough to directly proceed against him in the absence of a due notice and enquiry. It is not a case of total failure on the part of the appellant to ﬁle the declaration initially as contemplated under Section 18 of the said Act. That declaration was enquired into and he was found non-surplus holder. It is only the future acquisition, which the appellant is put against. Therefore, the entire action on the part of the authorities to take up the steps for surrender straightaway without re-determination afresh in respect of any such future holding of the appellant with a due enquiry as stated above, is wholly unsustainable. It is well settled that as per the Act, determination the holdings of the declarants or any variation, having regard to the subsequent circumstances, can be done in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Act, only after issuance of notice. Admittedly, in this case, no such enquiry nor any speciﬁc orders have been passed for determination of holdings, therefore, the question of surrender of any land by the appellant nor issuance of any such notice to him does not arise. In view of the above, Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned notice dated 8.7.2008 is set aside with liberty to the respondents herein to initiate the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, after giving an opportunity to the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J _________________ R. KANTA RAO, 30th SEPTEMBER , 2008 KA Note: Furnish copy in one week.