THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.20108 OF 2008 DT.15.07.2010 Between: Gedela Ramesh Naiah ……………Petitioner Vs. The State of A.P., represented by the District Collector, Srikakulam and two others. ……….Respondents. O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 03.09.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice and directing the second respondent herein not to take any steps in pursuance of the said notice dated 03.09.2008. The facts that are averred in the writ petition in brief are that the father of the petitioner late G.Gourunaidu and others filed Land Reforms Appeal Nos.1 of 1998 and 2 of 1998 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam against the order passed by the primary authority in L.C.C.Nos.727/PLK/75 & 1771/PLK/75, wherein orders dated 13.05.1998 were passed declaring the declarants therein as the excess land holders of agricultural lands. Pending appeals, the appellants therein prayed for stay of the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and pending appeals, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal granted stay of operation of the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. As the petitioner’s late father was incharge of the litigation, which is pending before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner had no knowledge about the pendency of the appeals. The father of the petitioner expired on 25.08.2002. While his father was alive, he entrusted the appeals to an Advocate at Srikakulam by name Sri V.Satyanarayana, who was also expired on 21.04.2001. Therefore, no one represented the appeals. Hence, the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the appeals. On the ground that there was no representation in the appeals, the appellate authority dismissed the appeals in L.R.A.Nos.1 of 1998 and 2 of 1998 on 16.12.2003 and 01.07.2004 respectively. Thereafter the petitioners in the appeals filed I.A.Nos.16 of 2008 and 17 of 2008 seeking condonation of delay and also to set aside the order of dismissal for default passed by the appellate authority in the appeals. While so, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Reforms Tribunal issued a public notice, dated 28.07.2008 stating that the lands mentioned in the schedule therein were selected for surrender under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act”) and that the Tribunal provisionally approved such surrender. It was also further stated that any objections concerning the said lands may file his/her objections in writing supported by a summary of evidence and copies of documents relied on within 15 days from the date of publication of the said notice. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18765 of 2008 questioning the public notice, dated 28.07.2008. This Court by order, dated 29.08.2008 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners therein to bring the fact of issuance of impugned notice to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam, by filing necessary petition and obtain order of stay of impugned notice, dated 28.07.2008 of the second respondent within 10 days as on that date should be maintained. It was also further directed to furnish copy of the order within two days. Though an application was filed by the petitioners therein for carbon copy of the order, dated 29.08.2008, they were not in a position to get the copy of the order of this Court. While so, on 03.09.2008, which was a public holiday on the eve of Vinayakachavithi, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings in L.C.C.No.727/PLK/75 & 1771/PLK/75 for surrender of the lands. Questioning which, this writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner was looking after the litigation that was pending before the appellate authority and the petitioner is not aware of the pendency of the appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam. His father died on 25.08.2002 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants also died on 21.04.2001 and the same was noticed by his father while he was alive, but this fact was not known to the petitioner. That is the reason why, the petitioner could not pursue the appeals pending before the appellate authority. The appellate authority on the ground that there is no representation on behalf of the appellants, dismissed both the appeals in L.R.A.Nos.1 of 1998 on 16.12.2008 and 2 of 1998 on 01.07.2004. Having noticed the same, the petitioners therein filed two applications before the appellate authority in I.A.Nos.16 of 2008 and 17 of 2008 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal. While so, the second respondent issued the public notice, dated 28.08.2003 under Section 10 of the Act and the Tribunal provisionally approved such surrender and also called for the objections in writing from the affected parties. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18765 of 2008. This Court by order dated 29.08.2008 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners therein to bring the fact of issuance of impugned notice to the appellate authority by filing necessary application and obtain stay of impugned notice dated 28.07.2008 of the second respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and till such time, status quo was ordered to be maintained. Ten days time that was granted by this Court was expired on 08.09.1998. The impugned notice was issued on 03.09.1998 even before expiry of the date of filing an application before the appellate Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the proceedings that have been impugned is not noticed but it is an order passed by the competent authority under Section 10 (4) of the Act with due notice to the petitioner. Therefore, an appeal lies to the appellate authority. He also submitted that the petitioners therein have not pursued the matter for four long years and the respondent authorities passed orders only when the appeals were dismissed for default. Therefore, he submitted that nothing illegality has been done by the respondents. He also submitted that the petitioner had not chosen to make an application as directed by this Court within ten days from the date of passing orders in W.P.No.18765 of 2008. The impugned order has been passed on 03.09.2008. He also submitted that admittedly, the Advocate of the petitioner stated to have communicated the petitioner about passing of the order on 10.09.2008 by which time, the impugned order was passed on 03.09.2008. Therefore, he submits that it is only for the purpose of dragging on the matter, not to part with the possession of the land, the present writ petition is filed. The point consideration is whether the order of the second respondent suffers from any legal infirmity? The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of two matters in L.C.C.Nos.1727/PLK/75 & 1771/PLK/75, dated 13.05.1998, appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunal. Those appeals were dismissed for default on the ground that there was no representation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2008 seeking condonation of delay and also for restoration of the appeals by setting aside the order of dismissal respectively. Pending the said applications, a public notice was issued on 28.07.2008 provisionally approving the surrender of the land under Section 10 of the Act and also calling for the objections from the affected parties. Questioning which, he filed W.P. No.18765 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.08.2008 directing the petitioner to bring to the notice of the appellate authority in the appeals within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and till such time, status quo was directed to be maintained and a direction was also given to furnish the copy of the order within two days. The contention of the petitioner is that no copy was furnished to the petitioner within two days. He came to know about passing of the order by way of telegram through the Advocate only on 10.09.2008, by which time the impugned order has already been passed on 03.09.2008. Therefore, as contended by the petitioner, the impugned proceedings are not a notice, but they are orders under Section 10 (4) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal lies to the appellate authority under Section 10 (3) (4) of the Act. Admittedly, two applications filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal and also a petition seeking to set aside the order of dismissal and restore the appeal are pending before the appellate court. The petitioner contends that the land in question is still with the petitioner. It appears that there is a communication gap between the petitioner and the authorities about passing of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18765 of 2008. Therefore, the authorities cannot be found fault in passing the impugned order, dated 03.09.2008. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the impugned order is illegal. Therefore, the legality and illegality of the impugned action of the respondent authorities cannot be adjudicated at this stage and as against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the appellate authority under Section 20 (3) of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order along with the appropriate applications. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained with regard to the possession of the land. No costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH J., Dt.15.07.2010 tjs