THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.710 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NOs.3455 OF 2006 AND 18998 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since all these three matters virtually arise out of the same proceedings, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioner in CRP.No.710 of 2006 is a legal representative of the original declarant, who filed the declaration purportedly under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 {“the Act” for brevity}, whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.3455 of 2006 and 18998 of 2008 are claiming to be the purchasers of the lands in Survey No.3/2 of Koppavaram Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District, from the declarant. Briefly stated, the facts, which gave rise to the present proceedings, are that in pursuance of a declaration given by the original adopted mother, namely Bande Mangayamma, in L.C.C.No.1684/KDA/75, the proceedings went on one after the other at different stages before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada {“the Tribunal” for brevity}, appellate authority and before this Court and, ultimately it boiled down to a stage where an appeal being L.R.A.No.181 of 1993 by the appellate Tribunal came to be disposed of against which the present revision is filed. Meanwhile, the original declarant died and the petitioner herein in the revision came up on record as legal representative. In the aforesaid appeal, several contentions were urged in regard to the lands, which are liable to be exempted and to be excluded from computing, apart from his own entitlement for the one full standard holding. It has been contended in the said appeal that there are certain lands, which cannot be included for the reasons mentioned and certain lands were to be classified as dry lands affecting the standing holding and thereby, reducing the holding and the consequent excess, if any. In all the pleas, which have been raised, it is stated that the lands at Koppavaram and Panasapadu Villages are tail end lands and therefore, the petitioner did not get any sort of water from any source of Government Irrigation and necessarily, they have to be treated as dry lands and classified accordingly but not as wet lands, whereas, these lands are classified as wet swelling to the holding. Further, the lands in Survey No.12/2 of Koppavaram Village and Survey Nos.239/2 and 241/3 of Panasapadu Villages are makam, hay-rick mound and menure pits and therefore, for the last more than thirty {30} years, they have been treated as agricultural lands. In Survey No.241, an extent of Ac.1.00 covered by thrashing floor and similarly in other extents as mentioned therein, there is a cattle shed, bore shed, makam, hay-rick mound, motor shed etc., for the last more than forty {40} years. So far, no occupancy rights or certificates were granted in spite of its abolition and therefore, those lands could not have been included in the holding. With these and other contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner, the lower appellate Court, having gone through the same and on the ground that there is no material in support and since the same is not established, they were rejected and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the revision. Mean while, in the surrender proceedings, in terms of the excess, which has been determined by the Tribunal in the very same proceedings, it is stated that enquiry has been conducted and though a notice has been issued for fifteen {15} days for proposing the lands by the declarant, without waiting for those fifteen {15} days, the Tribunal made a provisional selection on 05.05.1986 in respect of the lands which are purchased by the writ petitioners. In W.P.No.3455 of 2006, the petitioners claim to be purchasers in Survey No.24 of Koppavaram Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District, whereas the petitioners in W.P.No.18998 of 2008 claim to be the purchasers of Survey No.3/2 of Koppavaram village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District. As against these selection proceedings dated 05.05.1986, the declarant filed appeal in L.R.A.No.25 of 1986 and the same was allowed on 17.10.1986. Consequently, a fresh notice was given and thereafter, the original declarant submitted a surrender statement on 20.02.1987 wherein these lands, which were stated to have been purchased by the writ petitioners in Survey Nos.24 and 3/2 of Koppavaram Village, were not shown and included for surrender. However, in spite of the same, once again, Form-IX was issued by the Tribunal on 02.02.2006 consequent to the disposal of the appeal in L.R.A.No.181 of 1993, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid revision in CRP.No.710 of 2006, wherein again the Tribunal appears to have included the very same lands, which have been selected provisionally on 05.05.1986, which has been in fact, was set aside by the appellate Tribunal. Hence, there is challenge to these entire proceedings by the writ petitioners, aggrieved against the selection of these purchased lands. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners in the revision filed CRP.MP.No.5171 of 2010 purportedly under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to produce certain additional evidence consisting of pattadar pass book and proceedings dated 30.06.1965. These documents are in support of the claim for the lands shown erroneously as wet lands and to show that they are only treated as dry lands and that apart, the other lands are inam lands and the occupancy certificates are yet to be finalized. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, especially since additional evidence is sought to be adduced which is having direct relevance to the question, which is raised, the said application is allowed and the same are taken on record as additional evidence as per the order of this Court dated 25.02.2011. On a consideration of the detailed submissions made across the bar by both the sides, in the revision as well as in the Writ Petitions, the only question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the declarant can be stated to be holding the land in excess and the proceedings, which have been initiated once again by the Tribunal, are valid. There being no dispute to the fact that the proceedings at this stage where the appeal has been disposed of by the lower appellate Court is concerned, they are at the first stage under Section 9 of the Act for determination of the holding and therefore, it is always for the declarant or even the legal representatives to raise all such questions in support of their plea for the inclusion of the land or erroneous inclusions as such, since there is no finality. On a reading of the proceedings, it appears that the aforesaid pleas, which have been raised in the appeal, are raised for the first time, but there was no enquiry before the Tribunal and no evidence has been adduced in support or in rebuttal. Further, having regard to the evidence, which is now produced and to be considered in a proper perspective with an opportunity to rebut the same by production of any further material, it is felt desirable that the matter requires remittal back to the Tribunal, so that a detailed enquiry can be held with due opportunity to both the sides. It is made clear that even though some proceedings have been taken towards surrender, however, all such proceedings of surrender will always be subject to ultimate decision given by the Tribunal in the proceedings determining the entitlement and the excess. Admittedly, when the earlier provisional selection dated 05.05.1986 was set aside, the same could not possibly relied on once again by the Tribunal. However, the fact remains that the petitioners, who is the declarant, already filed surrender statements towards alleged excess and the same should be bound and shall be subject to the final result of holding any excess but not otherwise. Therefore, as regards the lands stated to have been purchased by the petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, all these purchases are subsequent to the entitlement of the lands, and they are in possession and enjoyment. In view of the same, these lands claimed by the writ petitioners being disputed lands can not be accepted towards surrender of any excess that would be found. Leaving it open to the State to proceed afresh in the event of any excess, the Civil Revision Petition and both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders impugned are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, for fresh enquiry after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. It is made clear that both the parties are entitled to produce evidence, if they chose to do so, in their support and the Tribunal shall enquire into the same and pass orders on merits, in accordance with law. However, having regard to the fact that the matter has been remitted back, the writ petitioners are entitled to be put back in possession of their respective lands and accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to redeliver the possession back to the writ petitioners, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal shall enquire and complete the entire proceedings, within a period of six {6} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Office is directed to send along with record the additional evidence received in this Court as per the order of this Court dated 25.02.2011 in CRP.MP.No.5171 of 2010. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 25th February 2011 Note: CC by ten days B/O RRB