IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5734 and 5745 of 2006 BETWEEN: Bagagala Ramanujam. ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector, Srikakulam and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A. RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These revisions are preferred by the declarants against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam dated 03.07.2006 in dismissing LRA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2000 by a common order. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The petitioners, who are brothers, filed declarations in L.C.C.Nos.281/ICH/75 and 282/ICH/75 and as per final orders passed in the said declarations vide orders of the appellate tribunal in LRA.Nos.6 and 7 of 1993 dated 23.10.1998, the petitioners were required to surrender an aggregate extent of 0.3364 ½ S.H. It was the case of the petitioners that the primary tribunal has not followed Rule 8 read with Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) whereas it was contended on behalf of the State that the petitioners were called upon to surrender the surplus land by giving notices more than once. However, as the petitioners did not respond they were called upon to surrender the excess land by the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal under Rule 8. The said notice under Rule 8(1) issued under Form 9 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali was questioned by the petitioners before the appellate tribunal in the appeals being LRA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2000, referred to above, which have been disposed of under the common order impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has very strenuously contended that for non-compliance with Rule 8 an opportunity to the declarants is must before resorting to selection of land by the primary tribunal. Learned counsel points out that the notice now impugned is clearly not in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 4. The facts, as noticed by the lower appellate tribunal in its judgment, show that the declarants have 1/3rd undivided share each. It is, however, borne out from the record that the petitioners were given notices calling upon them to surrender the excess land and the lower appellate tribunal in para 13 found that the notices about 9 times were issued to the petitioners and they have failed to respond, therefore, the primary tribunal was left with no alternative but to issue notice under Rule 8(1) selecting the land to account for the excess land. The lower appellate tribunal has duly considered that, prima facie, there is no dispute with regard to the land selected for surrender and both the petitioners are not opposed to the surrender of the excess land but only have been litigating on the ground that they have not been given notices, which fact is incorrect on the basis of the record as examined by the lower appellate tribunal. 5. I am, therefore, not able to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners and the order of the lower appellate tribunal adequately safeguards the interest of the petitioners, as the lower appellate tribunal has found that there is no dispute with regard to the proposed land and there is no contingency requiring the survey etc. as demanded by the petitioners. Since the land proposed for surrender is not found burdened with the third party interest, the lower appellate tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeal. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the contentions of the petitioners and as such, these revision petitions fail. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 27, 2010 DSK