IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2623 OF 2005 Between:- The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada …Petitioner A n d Smt.Vundavilli Anasuya Devi (Died) Per LRs Smt.Meka Mangayamma and 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2623 OF 2005 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-11-2004 in L.R.A.No.7 of 1998, on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, government, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for petitioner-State. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. By order dated 03-07-1995 in LCC.No.1613/PDP/75, the lower Tribunal has excluded Ac.3-35 cents in Sy.No.272 covered by Ex.B-23 sale deed and held that the family unit of the declarant-respondent was within the ceiling limit of one standard holding and so there was no excess land. According to the petitioner-State, the declarant was holding excess land of Ac.3-35 cents. The said land which was covered by a Will was considered in L.R.A.No.21/ 76 and the Will was held to be valid. The said finding became final. The land which the petitioner is know seeking to be included was said to have been donated to Bhoodana Yagna Board and they were included in the holding and even after the said inclusion, the declarant was held to be not holding any excess land. The learned appellate Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that when the matter has reached finality, it is not open to the petitioner to once again agitate the same on the same grounds and, therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal. There are absolutely no merits in the civil revision petition and the impugned order does not call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th February, 2011. Lrkm