IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1264 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/09/2008 in WP NO : 14408 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr. A.Shanker Reddy Rep. by its Power of Attorney K. Venkat Reddy H.No. 85 MIGH, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthed Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2 The Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lands Reforms Tribunal, Nizamabad. 3 The District Collector, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.K.RAMAKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1264 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 11-09-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14408 of 2001, dismissing the writ petition. 3. Appellant is petitioner and respondents are respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The whole grievance of the petitioner revolves round only on one issue i.e., the extent of land that was surrendered by the petitioner and taken over by the respondents. 6. The petitioner had filed his declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity “the Act”). It appears that after completion of the proceedings under the Act, the matter had gone up to the Supreme Court and a final verdict had been given by the Supreme Court, by order dated 24-10-994. Pursuant to the finality of the proceedings before all the forums, the land covered by Survey No.412, which consists of Acs.3-00, was taken over by the respondents along with other extents of land, in order to satisfy the required surplus land equivalent to 1.1133 standard holdings, which comes to about Acs.28-00. The said total extent of surplus land had been taken possession of by the respondents from different survey numbers belonging to the petitioner. 7. Obviously, there is no controversy with regard to the extent of land covered by other survey numbers. The controversy is with regard to the extent of land covered by Survey No.412 only. 8. According to the petitioner survey No.412 does not belong to him and whereas the extent of land covered by Survey No.414, which, according to the petitioner, consists of Acs.3-00 also had been taken over by the respondents. As per the version of the respondents, the extent of land covered by Survey No.414 is about Acs.9-00 and the petitioner has no objection in taking over the land covered by the said survey number. But, when it comes to Survey No.412, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the extent covered by survey No.412 does not belong to him at all and, as such, the said land has to be deleted. 9. In this connection, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an objection had been taken by him way back in 1996, subsequent to the eventual decision rendered by the apex Court in the year 1994. 10. From the impugned order, it is obvious that the learned single Judge had taken note of the procedure that had been followed by the respondents before taking possession of the surplus lands of the petitioner. It was pointed out by the learned single Judge that before selection of the lands to be taken over as surplus lands, the procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder had been followed and that the petitioner failed to submit his statement. In such circumstances, the respondents have selected the lands of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under the Rules. That apart, it is also not in dispute that the surplus lands were taken over by the respondents and the same were distributed to various beneficiaries on 31-01-2001, in addition to the allotment of surplus lands to various other Governmental institutions. 11. Further more, having noticed the alleged mistake in the year 1996 itself, we are unable to discern as to why the petitioner had kept quiet till the writ petition was filed in the year 2001. If really there was any mistake, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to typographical or clerical error, the petitioner ought to have approached the primary Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal seeking correction of the said mistake. Despite availability of those remedies, none of these courses were persuaded by the petitioner and it is only for the first time he had approached this Court in the year 2001 by way of filing the present writ petition. 12. The learned single Judge, after taking note of all the relevant factors into consideration, had rightly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 11-09-2008, passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. 13. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 15-12-2008. Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1264 of 2008 15-12-2008 (Msr)