THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21524 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the action of respondents 1 to 3 in taking possession of the land admeasuring Ac.25.00 in Survey No.216 of Nuzivid Revenue Village, Krishna District, in the course of enforcing the orders passed under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, on a declaration filed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent owned different extents of land in various Survey Numbers of Nuzivid and other villages. As required under the Act, he filed a declaration. After causing detailed enquiry on the declaration, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bandar, passed an order dated 27.01.1996 to the effect that the 4th respondent has to surrender land to an extent of Ac.1.1254 standard holdings. After the orders became final, the Land Reforms Tribunal required the 4th respondent to identify the lands for surrender. One of the items declared by the 4th respondent was the land, admeasuring Ac.50.00, in R.S.No.216 of Nuzivid Village. It is stated that out of the said land, Ac.25.00 was settled in favour of the petitioner. The same was accepted by the Tribunal and that extent was deleted from the holding of the 4th respondent. The latter had agreed to surrender the remaining portion of land in R.S.No.216, in compliance with the orders passed under the Act. The petitioner states that the land settled in his favour is on the northern side of R.S.No.216 and still, the respondents are trying to take possession of the northern side portion, under the guise of accepting the surrender from the 4th respondent. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the 4th respondent himself identified the northern portion of R.S.No.216 for surrender and there is absolutely no basis for the claim of the petitioner. At one stage of the writ petition, this court passed an order on 08.12.008 requiring the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Krishna District, to demarcate the land in Survey No.216 in two equal portions on northern and southern sides. The report together with the sketches has since been submitted. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no doubt or controversy that the land settled in favour of the petitioner is on the northern side and in that view of the matter, there is no basis for the respondents to take possession of the land on the northern side of the survey number. He contends that even the 4th respondent could not have interfered with the possession of the land of the petitioner on the northern side and under the guise of accepting the surrender from the 4th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 cannot act in a different way. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that to discharge his obligation under the Act and to comply with the orders passed by the Tribunal, the 4th respondent has identified the specific area in the survey number and the possession was taken only in accordance therewith. It is further stated that the possession of the land was taken way back in the year 1996 and different parts of it were handed over to various departments. Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that his client categorically indicated that he would surrender the land in the southern portion, particularly in view of the fact that the land in the northern portion was settled in favour of the petitioner. The land in R.S.No.216 of Nuzivid Village, is a vast extent of 50 acres. It is important to note that it was not exclusively owned by a single individual. By the time the Act came to be enacted, approximately half of the survey number was settled in favour of the petitioner. The remaining half was held by the 4th respondent. In the proceedings under the Act, vis-à-vis the 4th respondent, it ultimately emerged that he had to surrender 1.1254 standard holdings. He did indicate that he would surrender the land owned by him, in R.S.No.216. It is not as if the portions owned by the petitioner and the 4th respondent in Sy.No.216 were not identified. The northern portion was settled in favour of the petitioner, and the left over southern portion was with the 4th respondent. Therefore, it was only the southern portion, that could have been surrendered, in that survey number. Another aspect, which needs to be taken note of, is that, in the survey, that was conducted in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, it emerged that, apart from the lands owned by the petitioner and 4th respondent, there are lands belonging to other persons also. They are depicted in the blue colour, and assigned R.S.Nos.200, 201 and 1046. The report discloses that the northern portion of Ac.25.36 cents in R.S.No.216 is in two bits of Ac.12.26 cents and 13.10 cents, and the southern portion is also in two bits of Ac.12.26 cents and 13.10 cents. This is not a case where the Government claimed original ownership of the land. It has only accepted the surplus land from the 4th respondent, under the provisions of the Act. Time and again, this Court held that a declarant under the Act has the absolute discretion to surrender the land, of his choice, towards surplus. When there is no dispute between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 4th respondent, on the other hand, the respondents 1 to 3 do not have any independent and exclusive right, to insist on surrender of a particular piece of land. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that respondents 1 to 3 shall be entitled to take possession of only the southern portion of the land, which is demarcated and identified by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. The petitioner shall be entitled to remain in possession of the northern portion. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21-01-2009. JSU/KO