THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 11232, 11352 and 20795 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: In these writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. However, the facts as narrated in W.P. No. 11232 of 2008 are noted down for the purpose of resolving the issues. 4th petitioner is a Partnership Firm constituted under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the 5th petitioner is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the partners of 5th petitioner-Company, whereas 3rd petitioner is the Managing Partner of 4th petitioner-Firm. They have questioned the notice in Form No.IX and the Order of even date 19-2-2008 in C.C. No.Ch/2531/75 passed by 2nd respondent as without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder and also violative of principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; consequently seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to forbear from interfering with the rights of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.32-08 guntas in S.Nos. 19/20, 19/22, 19/23, 19/25, 19/26 and 19/48 of Ammapally village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District in any manner whatsoever. It is the case of the petitioners that one Venkatrami Reddy was the original owner of huge extents of lands in Ammapally village, Chevella Taluq of Rangareddy District. In the year 1963, in an oral partition effected among the daughters of Venkatrami Reddy, namely, Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai @ Radha Laxmi Bai, Vijitha Bhoopal and Vidyullatha Devi, the subject lands measuring Ac.32-08 guntas in 19/20, 19/22, 19/23/2, 19/25/2, 19/26/2 and 19/48/2 of Ammapally village, Chevella Taluq, Rangareddy District fell to the share of Smt. Vijitha Bhoopal. In the year 1966, Vijitha Bhoopal delivered physical possession of the above lands to Umareddy, on an agreement of sale of the said property. On 17.11.1969, the subject land was sold to Umareddy by receiving substantial part of consideration under the agreements and Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai and Smt. Vidyullatha Devi have joined as co-executants. On 15.6.1978, the Land Reforms Tribunal in C.C. No.CH/2421/75, in the declaration filed by the husband of Umareddy, namely, Boda Venkatram Reddy, has computed the lands purchased by Umareddy, to their holdings. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 27.2.1979 in C.C. 1085, 1090, 1088/NZB/75, while deleting the subject lands from the holding of Vijitha Bhoopal, has determined the standard holding as on 1.1.1975. On 19.1.1983 Smt. Umareddy obtained a registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement dated 17.11.1969 from Vijitha Bhoopal, to which Radha Lakshmi Bai gave her consent in the execution of agreement. The declaration in C.C.No. CL/2531/75 of Smt. Radha Lakshmi Bai @ Rani Radha Laxmi was determined, declaring her standard holding as 16.9322, on 28.2.1983. Against the order dated 28.2.1983, Smt. Vidyullatha Devi filed L.R.A. No 9 of 1984 before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 23.7.1984. Smt. Vidyullatha Devi further carried the matter in revision before this Court in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1985 against the order in L.R.A. No. 9 of 1984 and the said C.R.P. was disposed of setting aside the order of L.R.A.T. and remanding the matter to the Primary Tribunal (L.R.T) to re-compute the standard holdings of three declarants, namely, Radha Laxmi Bai, Vidyullatha Devi and Jamuna Bai. On such remand, the Primary Tribunal (LRT) determined the standard holding of Smt. Vidyullatha Devi as 7.9389, in C.C. No. 2796/75, dated 16.1.1988. Aggrieved thereby, Mrs. Damodar Reddy preferred L.R.A. No. 8 of 1988 and the said L.R.A. was dismissed on 28.4.1988. Therefore, the matter was further carried in revision in C.R.P. No. 3275 of 1989 before this Court and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Primary Tribunal. Ultimately, the Primary Tribunal determined the standard holding of Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai, declaring that she is holding a surplus of 13.9322 standard holding, by common order passed under Section 9 of the Act in C.C. No. 2531/75, 2796/75 and 2797/75 dated 21.5.1993. Further, on 19.11.1993 the L.R.T. passed orders under Section 10 of the Act, holding the lands owned by Smt. Uma Reddy as surplus lands, without notice to her. On 30.3.2002, the Primary Tribunal (L.R.T) passed common order re-determining the standard holding of Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai as 13.6377 and confirming the orders dated 21.5.1993. On 26.3.2004, the L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 filed by Smt. Uma Reddy, questioning the order dated 19.11.1993 holding the subject lands as surplus lands, was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Primary Tribunal setting aside the order dated 19.11.1993 in C.C. No.CH/2531/75. The L.R.A. No. 9 of 2002 filed by Vidyullatha Devi, Damodhar Reddy and two other family members was allowed on 5.11.2004 setting aside the order dated 30.3.2002 and the matter was remanded to the Primary Tribunal for disposal in the light of the directions given in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1985 dated 2.4.1987. The Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, on remand, pursuant to the orders in L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998, has passed orders under Section 10 of the Act, holding that the subject lands held by Smt. Uma Reddy cannot be said to be surplus lands. Accordingly, the subject lands were ordered to be mutated in favour of Smt. Uma Reddy, by an order dated 22.12.2004, which attained finality. However, on remand by orders of L.R.A.9 of 2002, the L.R.T. has passed orders under Section 9 of the Act on 16.6.2007 re- determining the standard holdings and declaring that Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai is holding surplus to an extent of 13.6377 S.H. and Damodhar Reddy to an extent of 7.9389 S.H., in C.C. Nos. 2531 and 2796 of 1975, respectively. On 19.2.2008 the Primary Tribunal passed orders under Section 10 of the Act selecting again the subject lands and other lands as surplus lands, in C.C. No.2531/75 of Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai, without notice to Smt. Uma Reddy or their transferees. On 19.2.2008, notice in Form IX under Rule 8(1) directing the sons of Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai to surrender the subject lands was issued. Both the order and the notice in Form No.IX of even date 19.2.2008 are questioned in this writ petition on the ground that by order dated 19.2.2008 the L.R.A.T. cannot review its own orders dated 21.12.2004, which have become final and not set aside by the appellate authority. Respondent No.2 – Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter affidavit denying the allegations leveled in the writ petition, stating that Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai was declared as surplus holder to an extent equal to 13.9322 standard holding, in C.C. No. CH/2531/75, under Section 9 of the Act, by an order of the L.R.T. dated 28.2.1983. In the L.R.A. No. 34 of 1994, filed by a third party, namely, Sumitra Devi as purchaser of certain land at Chowderguda village, the L.R.T. was directed to delete the land claimed by the said Sumitra Devi. Accordingly, the L.R.T. passed orders on 26.9.1995 in C.C. No. CH/2531/75 for deletion to an extent equal to 0.2945 standard holding, from the original extent of 13.9322 standard holding declared surplus against Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai. As such, the extent declared surplus by Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai in C.C.No. CH/2531/1975 has been reduced to 13.6377 standard holding. The ARDO LRT-II, Rangareddy District has passed orders on 19.11.1993 under Section 10 of the Act and approved the lands at Ammapally village, Kacharam village of Shamshabad Mandal. Accordingly, the R.D.O. Chevella has issued Form IX on 26.11.1993 and requested the M.R.O. to take over possession of the surplus land covered in the order dated 19.11.1993. The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Shamshabad Mandal has also taken over possession of the land in Form X on 8.12.1993 including the land in question. The necessary entries were taken in pahanies and recorded as ‘Kharij Kaha’. Further, one Smt. Vidyullatha Devi w/o Damodar Reddy, has claimed share from the land held by Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai, declarant in C.C. No.CH/2531/1975 and filed L.R.A. No. 9 of 2002. The L.R.A.T., vide order dated 5.11.2007, has allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and directed the Primary Tribunal to dispose of C.C. Nos. CH/2531/1975, 2596/75 and 2797/75, as per the directions given by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1985 dated 2.4.1987. In pursuance to the said orders of the L.R.A.T., the L.R.T., Chevella heard the case and passed orders on 16.6.2007 in the above cases, duly confirming the declarants R. Vijay Kumar, R. Vinod Kumar and Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai as surplus holders to an extent equivalent to 13.6377 standard holding and R. Damodar Reddy i.e. husband of Smt. Vidyullatha Devi, as surplus holder to an extent of 7.9389 standard holding, and directed the son of late Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai to surrender the surplus land. Accordingly, notice in Form VI was issued on 27.6.2007. Accordingly, both the brothers have surrendered the lands in Ammapally and other villages, including the land in question. The LRT-cum-RDO, Chevella Division has issued Form VIII on 7.1.2008 and published on 12.2.2008 and objections have been received within the stipulated time. The L.R.T. has accepted the surrender of the lands made under Section 10(4) of the Act towards surplus land, to an extent of Ac.545-95 cents equivalent to 10.4341 standard holding, vide order dated 19.2.2008 in C.C.No.2531/1975. Accordingly, Form IX notice was issued on 19.2.2008 and possession of the said land was taken over in Form X, on 9.5.2008. Further, the L.R.T. Nizamabad passed order No.1085/NZB, 1090, 1088, 1938/NZB/75 dated 27.2.1979 under Section 9 of the Act, declaring Smt. Vijitha Bhoopal as surplus holder to an extent of 0.0108 standard holding. Smt. Uma Reddy has purchased the land through registered sale deed No.208/83 dated 19.1.1983 from Vijitha Bhoopal, when the patta of the land in question stands in the name of Radha Laxmi Bai – declarant in C.C.No.CH/2135/75. So, the land purchased by Smt. Uma Reddy vide registered sale deed No.208/83 dated 19.1.1983 is after the crucial date 24.1.1971, under Sections 7 and 17 of the APLR (COAH) Act, 1973. The State of A.P. filed LRA SR No. 57 of 2005 before the L.R.A.T. Rangareddy District against the orders of the LRT-cum-RDO, Chevella Division dated 22.12.2004, which is pending. It is further stated that the LRAT passed orders under Section 9 of the Act in C.C.Nos.Ch/2531/75, Ch/2796/75 and Ch/2797/74 dated 21.5.1993, declaring the declarants, namely, Damodar Reddy h/o Vidyullatha Devi, declarant in CC No. Ch/2796/75 was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 07.9389 S.H. and Smt. Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai, declarant in C.C.No.Ch/2531/75 as surplus holder to an extent of 13.9322. Pursuant to the order passed by the L.R.T., dated 21.5.1993, the lands in question along with other lands were selected as surplus by the L.R.T. vide order dated 19.11.1993 and the same was recorded as ‘Kharij Khata’ ceiling surplus land. Further, Uma Reddy w/o V.R. Reddy filed LRA No. 16 of 1998 against the orders of the L.R.T., dated 19.11.1993 and the L.R.A.T, Rangareddy District allowed the appeal on 26.3.2004 setting aside the common order dated 19.11.1993 passed by the L.R.T., and directing the L.R.T. to enquire into the claim of the appellants in L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 for deletion of the lands in question. The L.R.T. passed orders on 22.12.2004 in C.C. No. 12 of 2004 in C.C. No. Ch/2531/75 and directed the M.R.O. Shamshabad Mandal to take action to transfer the lands in S.Nos. 19/20, 19/22, 19/23, 19/25, 19/26 and 19/48, to an extent of Ac.32-08 guntas of Ammapally village, in the revenue records, in favour of the purchasers. The State of A.P. filed LPA SR No. 57 of 2005 before the L.R.A.T. against the orders of L.R.T. dated 22.12.2004 in C.C.no.Ch/2531/75. The land purchased by Umareddy after crucial date, as such, is null and void under Section 7 and 17 of the AP LR COAH Act, 1973. It is further stated that all subsequent transactions done during the years 2005, 2007 and 2008 are also null and void under Sections 7 and 17 of the APLR (COAH) Act, 1973. The LRT- cum-RDO, Chevella Division passed orders on 16.6.2007 in C.C. Nos. Ch/2531/75, 2596/75 and 2797/75 as per the directions of the L.R.A.T. in LRA No. 9 of 2002 dated 5.11.2004 directing the sons of Late Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai to surrender the surplus land and issued Form VI notice on 27.6.2007. Accordingly, both of them have surrendered the land in Ammapally and other villages, including the land in question. The L.R.T. has accepted the surrender of the land made under Section 10(4) of the Act towards surplus land to an extent of Ac.545-05 cents, equivalent to 10.4341 S.H., by order dated 19.2.2008 in C.C. No. Ch/2531/75. Accordingly, Form IX notice was issued by the R.D.O. Chevella Division in CC. No. Ch/2531/75 and possession of the surplus land was taken over in Form X, on 9.5.2008. The petitioners have purchased the land after the crucial date and, therefore, all the sales and the transactions are null and void under Section 7 and 17 of the APLR (COAH) Act, 1973 and they are not entitled for any notice. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.7 also filed counter, almost taking the same stand as is taken by respondent No.2. Heard both sides. It appears, in the year 1963, an oral partition was effected amongst the daughters of Venkatrami Reddy, namely, Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai, Vijitha Bhoopal and Vidyullatha Devi. Immediately thereafter, in the year 1966, the subject land admeasuring Ac.32-08 guntas in S.Nos. 19/20, 19/22, 19/23/2, 19/25/2, 19/26/2 and 19/48/2 of Ammapally village, Chevella Taluq, Rangareddy District, which fell to the share of Vijitha Bhoopal was put in possession of Umareddy, as she intended to purchase the same. However, an agreement was entered into only on 17.11.1969 and substantial part of consideration was received under the said agreement. Further, it is interesting to notice that Smt. Radha Lakshmi Bai and Smt. Vidyullatha Devi were also signatories to the said agreement as co-executants. In the year 1978, when the husband of Umareddy i.e. Venkatrami Reddy filed declaration under the A.P. Agricultural Land Reforms Act in C.C. No.Ch/2421/75, he had included the lands purchased by Umareddy. The declarations filed by three daughters of Venkatrami Reddy were disposed of together and the land purchased by Umareddy was shown in the declaration filed by Vijitha Bhoopal and the same was excluded, having been sold before the advent of the Act. However, Vidyullatha Devi filed L.R.A. No. 9 of 1984 against the order dated 28.2.1989 before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed. Further, the matter was carried in revision in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1995 against the order in L.R.A. 9 of 1984 by Vidyullatha Devi before this Court and the said C.R.P. was disposed of setting aside the order of the L.R.A.T. and remanding the matter to the Primary Tribunal to re-compute the standard holdings of three declarants, namely, Radha Lakshmi Bai, Vidyullatha Devi w/o Damodar Reddy and Jamuna Reddy. Accordingly, the Primary Tribunal determined the standard holding of Vidyullatha Devi/Damodar Reddy as 7.9389 in C.C. No.Ch/2796/75 dated 16.1.1988. Aggrieved by the same, Vidyullatha Devi preferred appeal in L.R.A. No. 8 of 1988. However, the same was dismissed. Again, C.R.P. 3275 of 1989 was filed and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Primary Tribunal. The Primary Tribunal determined the standard holding of Radha Lakshmi Bai, declaring that she is holding surplus to an extent of 13.9322 S.H., by common order under Section 9 of the Act, in C.C. Nos. Ch/2531/75, 2796/75 and 2797/75. Further, the Primary Tribunal passed orders under Section 10 of the Act selecting the lands held by Umareddy as surplus lands, without notice to Uma Reddy. The Primary Tribunal also determined the standard holdings of Radha Lakshmi Bai as 13.6377, by an order dated 30.3.2002 i.e. virtually confirming the order dated 21.5.1993. In the meanwhile, LRA No. 16 of 1998 filed by Umareddy, questioning the order dated 19.11.1993 selecting the subject lands as surplus lands, was allowed on 26.3.2004 remanding the matter to the Primary Tribunal, setting aside the order dated 19.11.1993 in CC No. Ch/2531/75 and directing the Primary Tribunal not to select the lands held by Umareddy. Accordingly, the L.R.T. passed fresh orders on 22.12.2004 under Section 10 of the Act, holding that the lands held by Umareddy cannot be selected as surplus lands, in C.C. No.2531/75. Further, the said order dated 22.12.2004 was implemented by an order dated 31.12.2004 by the Primary Authority, ordering mutation of the name of Umareddy in the revenue records and issuing pattadar passbooks. Further, on 20.5.2005, Umareddy transferred the lands to third parties and petitioners 4 and 5 are the purchasers of the subject lands from the transferee of Smt. Umareddy. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that aggrieved by the order passed under Section 9 of the Act confirming the S.H. of Radha Lakshmi Bai and others by an order dated 30.3.2002, Vidyullatha Devi filed L.R.A. No. 9 of 2002 and by an order dated 5.11.2004 the matter was remanded to the Primary Authority and the Primary Authority passed an order under Section 9 of the Act on 16.6.2007 against all the three declarants and, further, on 19.2.2008 an order under Section 10 of the Act was passed selecting the lands of the petitioners as surplus lands, which were the subject matter of L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 dated 26.3.2004, the order of which had attained finality on 22.12.2004 in C.C. No. Ch/2531/75. Therefore, the order dated 19.2.2008 amounts to reviewing the order dated 22.12.2004 and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to review its order. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in Digambar Rao and another v. Govt. of A.P., through the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Nizamabad[1] and drawn the attention of this Court to paras 8 and 13 of the said decision, which read as under: “(8). IT is, however, trite to say that in the absence of any provisions, a power of substantive review does not exist in a statutory authority. Rule 16 (5) (b) of the rules, as noticed hereinabove, confers a limited power upon the Tribunal, which power is akin to the provisions of Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code' ). So far as the power of review of civil Courts is concerned, the same is not governed by Section 152 of the Code, but is governed by the provisions of Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 thereof. It must, therefore, be held that no substantive power of review inheres in the Tribunal or appellate Tribunal. ( 13 ) ONE of us V. V. S. Rao, J, in v. Sudhakarrao v. State of A. P. , considered the aforementioned aspect, and noticing the judgments of the apex Court in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. and united India Insurance Co. v. Rajendra singh, observed in para 12: . . . . While exercising power under rule 16 (5) (b) of the Rules, the Tribunal or appellate Tribunal does not interfere with the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act which are in the nature of execution proceedings. The provision is intended for rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes due to accidental slip or omission. It is made in the interest of the declarants and it should be interpreted very widely and even at the stage of surrender under section 10 of the Act or at the stage of computation the Tribunal is competent to rectify the mistakes. . . . .”. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the order passed and attained finality in L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 is being reviewed through the impugned notices. There is some mistake in not noticing the proceedings in L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 which attained finality and the order dated 31.12.2004 of the Primary Authority directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to mutate name of the predecessor in title i.e. Umareddy. Thereafter, the said Umareddy also sold out the lands in question to the petitioners or their predecessors. It appears, the original proceedings under the declaration filed by the daughters of Venkatrami Reddy are in the process of attaining finality since the matter was carried in appeal and remanded and again carried in appeal and remanded etc. The orders passed in L.R.A. Nos. 278 of 1995 and 9 of 2002 and L.R.A. No.16 of 1998 simultaneously attained finality. Therefore, the proceedings under L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 were not noticed in other L.R.As. filed by the three sisters. Further, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioners or their predecessors in title. Therefore, the impugned notice in Form No.IX and the order dated 19.2.2008 in C.C. No.CH/2531/75 are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondents-authorities to examine all the aspects and pass a comprehensive order under the Act, after putting all the parties concerned on notice. W.P. No. 20795 of 2008: In this writ petition, challenge is made against the order dated 19.2.2008 in C.C.No.CH/2531/75 and the Notice in Form No.IX for taking possession of the lands to an extent of Ac.21-04 guntas in S.Nos. 19/12, 19/18, 19/19, 19/21 of Ammapally village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. According to the petitioners, Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai was the original owner of the subject lands, having been inherited the same from her father Venkata Rami Reddy in an oral partition among Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai, Vijitha Bhoopal and Vidyullatha Devi. The said Radha Lakshmi Bai sold the subject land in the year 1969 to A.V. Narasimha Raju, P. Venkata Rama Raju and A. Satyanarayana Raju and executed an unregistered sale deed on 25.3.1972, while receiving full consideration, in favour of the said purchasers. Subsequently, Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.534/81 dated 1.4.1981 in favour of A.V. Narasimha Raju and another registered sale deed bearing document No.533/1981 dated 1.4.1981 in favour of P. Venkata Rama Raju and A. Satyanarayana Raju. In turn, they sold the subject lands to Balwant Reddy and five others and they have filed an application before the MRO, Shamshabad for incorporating their names against S.Nos. 19/17, 19/18, 19/19 and 19/21 after issuing Form-VIII notice, calling for objections if any, for grant of amendment as required under the Record of Rights Act. Since no objections were received within the stipulated time, the acquisition of their rights by way of sale deeds vide document Nos. 4589/02 dated 29.5.2002 and 4574/02 dated 14.6.2002 was granted and their was accepted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Record of Rights Act and the M.R.O. by proceedings dated 8.8.2002 ordered to effect changes by amending Record of Rights Register of Ammapally and to carry out necessary changes in the Pahani for the year 2002-03. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have purchased the said lands from Balwant Reddy and 5 others under various registered sale deeds dated 1.3.2004 vide document bearing Nos. 2296/04 (7 acres), 2295/04 (8 acres), 2297/04 (6.04 acres) respectively for a total consideration of Rs.10,12,000/- and were put in possession of the said lands and they have got mutated their names in the revenue records and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While so, the officials from the office of 3rd respondent have visited the subject lands without any notice on 24.5.2008 stating that the subject lands are surplus ceiling lands. On the request made by the petitioners, they have made available the copies of Notice