THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22412 of 2011 ORDER: The impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2011 is an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy (second respondent), under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the petitioners were directed to deliver possession of an extent of 3.2982 S.H. to the Tahsildar, Munipally Mandal, Sanga Reddy District (third respondent) before 10.08.2011, failing which the third respondent was directed to take possession of the land at any time thereafter. The petitioners, the declarants in C.C.No.2619/S/75 and batch, furnished their declarations under Section 8 of the Act, and were declared as surplus holders by the Land Reforms Tribunal-I, Medak at Sangareddy (Primary Tribunal), by its order dated 09.11.1976. Aggrieved thereby, they approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA.No.13 of 1985 and batch. The Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 13.04.1987, set aside the orders of the Primary Tribunal and remanded the matter back for its consideration afresh. The Primary Tribunal, by its order dated 17.11.1992, again declared the petitioners as surplus holders. The appeals preferred thereagainst, to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Medak, in LRA.No.22 of 1994 and batch, were also dismissed by order dated 09.02.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred CRP.No.1113 of 2995 and batch before this Court. This Court, by order dated 22.08.2003, remanded the matter back to the Primary Tribunal for its consideration afresh based on the evidence and material on record. Thereafter, the Primary Tribunal again passed orders on 21.02.2008 declaring the petitioners as surplus holders against which the petitioners preferred appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Medak, vide LRA.No.2 of 2008 and batch. The said appeals were also dismissed by order dated 27.07.2011. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners assert that, while the appeals were dismissed on 27.07.2011, they have not received copies of the orders till date, and it is only from the date of communication of the orders is the limitation, prescribed for preferring revisions under Section 21 of the Act, applicable. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would point out that, even after orders are passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Section 10(2) of the Act required the Tribunal to serve a notice on every person specifying the extent of land which such person has to surrender, and to file a statement within such period not being less than 15 days, as it may fix, indicating therein full particulars of the lands which such person proposes to surrender; under Section 10(4), if the statement is not filed within the time fixed, the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, itself select the entire extent, or the balance of the extent which such persons have to surrender, and pass an order to that effect; under Section 10(6), the Tribunal is required, before passing orders under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 10, to publish particulars of the lands proposed to be surrendered, or selected, in such manner as may be prescribed; and to consider the objections received, if any, pursuant to the publication which, under the rules, is by affixture. Learned Counsel would contend that, even if the orders of the Appellate Tribunal were not subjected to further challenge by way of revisions, it is only after following the procedure aforementioned can the provision of Section 11 be resorted to; as the aforesaid procedure has not yet been complied with, the respondents could not have passed the impugned proceedings under Section 11 of the Act; even otherwise the orders of the Appellate Tribunal would attain finality only if no revision is preferred thereagainst; and as the petitioners can only prefer revisions, under Section 21 of the Act, on receipt of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, the respondents could not have passed the impugned proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. Curiously, the second respondent does not make any mention, in the counter affidavit, regarding his having complied with the requirements of sub-sections (2), (4) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, but still asserts that issuing the impugned proceedings, under Section 11 of the Act, is valid. The counter affidavit is evasive. It is evident that the impugned proceedings are not only premature, but in flagrant violation of sub-sections (2), (4) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act. The impugned proceedings must be, and is accordingly, quashed. This order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating proceedings, under sub-sections (2), (4) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, and take action in accordance with law. It is made clear that as the petitioners have the right of preferring revision, under Section 21 of the Act, any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an observation on merits, and it shall always be open to the petitioners to raise all such grounds in the revision petition as is permissible in law, if they choose to avail the remedy under Section 21 of the Act. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:19.08.2011 usd