IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2769, 2780 and 2788 of 2003 CRP.No.2769 of 2003 BETWEEN Balleda Sripathi and another. ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By District Collector, Srikakulam and seven others. ...RESPONDENTS CRP.Nos.2780 and 2788 of 2003 BETWEEN Lolla Purnaiah and four others. ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By District Collector, Srikakulam and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY MR. K. BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: CRP.Nos.2780 and 2788 of 2003: The revision petitioners herein filed appeals being LRA (GR).Nos.684 and 685 of 2003 dated 24.03.2003 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal – cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali in LCC.Nos.186/75/Ichapuram and 185/75/Ichapuram respectively. The aforesaid appeals were filed by the petitioners in their capacity as legal representatives of the deceased original declarant in each of these declarations. The appeals were not entertained by the appellate tribunal on the ground that the names of the appellants are not reflected as legal representatives in the orders of the tribunal dated 03.03.2003 and the appeals were rejected by separate orders dated 22.04.2003. Hence, these revisions. CRP.No.2769 of 2003: 2. The revision petitioners herein filed an appeal being LRA (GR).No.712 of 2003 dated 25.03.2003 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in LCC.No.186/75/Ichapuram in their capacity as minor daughters and for entitlement of 2/9th share of the property of the declarant – Lolla Lakshminarayana Sarma. The appeal was not entertained on the ground that the names of the appellants as legal representatives are not reflected in the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 03.03.2003 and the appeal was rejected by order dated 25.04.2003. Questioning the said order of the appellate tribunal the present revision is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. A copy of the order of the tribunal shows that the declarant in LCC.No.186/75/Itchapuram is Lolla Lakshminarayana Rao and after his death, his legal heirs are brought on record. In fact, one of the legal heirs – Lolla Purnaiah alias Lolla Jagannadha Rao is the first petitioner in CRP.Nos.2780 and 2788 of 2003. The contentions on behalf of the said Lolla Purnaiah alias Lolla Jagannadha Rao were also considered by the tribunal and the order of the tribunal is communicated to the legal heirs in both declarations, referred to above. Further, the other declarant in LCC.No.185/75/Ichapuram – Lolla Viswanadham also appears to have died and succeeded by his wife, Lolla Indiramma, who is the second petitioner in CRP.Nos.2780 and 2788 of 2003. A reference to the petitioners in CRP.No.2769 of 2003 is also found at page No.7 of the order of the land reforms tribunal as to the capacity in which they are brought on record as legal heirs of Lolla Lakshminarayana Rao. 5. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioners in these revision petitions, who had filed appeals before the appellate tribunal are apparently legal heirs of the declarants, who were brought on record as per the recitals in the order of the land reforms tribunal but technically their names are not added in the cause title and perhaps for that reason, the lower appellate tribunal did not entertain the appeals on their behalf notwithstanding the fact that the order of the primary tribunal records that the appellants have come on record. The objections to that extent raised by the office of the lower appellate tribunal though replied to by the appellants’ counsel, the appeals were not entertained on this ground. In effect, therefore, the appellants, who have substantial case and on whom the right to sue survives, are denied the valuable opportunity of right of appeal. I am, therefore, constrained to set aside the impugned orders and remit the respective appeals to the lower appellate tribunal. 6. However, in view of the deficiency found in the order of the land reforms tribunal in not amending the cause title by showing the names of the legal representatives, the learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that he shall make appropriate formal applications before the lower appellate tribunal in the respective appeals seeking leave to prefer the appeals as legal representatives of the deceased declarants in the respective land reform cases within six (6) weeks from today and on such applications being filed, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal shall take the appeals on file by passing appropriate orders on the applications for leave and decide the appeals in accordance with law. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 16, 2011 Note: Office to communicate a copy of this order to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal within two (2) weeks from today along with records, if any. (B/o) DSK