THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.726 of 2005 ORDER: It appears, the husband of petitioner No.1 namely Mandavalli Naga Venkata Durga Soma Linga Lakshmana Rao filed a declaration on behalf of his family, under Section 8 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur, and after detailed consideration of the matter, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed order dated 20.04.1976 determining under Section 9 of the Act that the family held land equivalent to Ac.1.8558 cents standard holding in excess of the ceiling on the notified date. Thereafter, on 16.11.1981, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru, passed orders determining that the 1st petitioner herein held the land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari at Eluru, and the same was allowed on 17.06.1982 declaring the appellants therein as non-surplus holders. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the order dated 17.06.1982 passed by the appellate authority attained finality, on the application filed by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Eluru, under Section 22 (1) of the Act, before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Jangareddigudem, seeking to review the order dated 16.11.1981, it was declared under the impugned order dated 07.01.2005, that the total standard holding of the declarant is in excess of the ceiling area, which she shall surrender under Section 10(1) of the Act. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after more than 23 years, the order dated 17.06.1982 passed by the appellate authority is sought to be reviewed in the guise of reviewing the order dated 16.11.1981 passed by the primary authority, which procedure is unknown to law, and therefore the impugned order dated 07.01.2005 is liable to be set aside. This is an unfortunate case. Admittedly, the order dated 16.11.1981 passed by the primary authority was challenged by way of an appeal before the appellate authority, and it was allowed by order dated 17.06.1982 holding that there was no excess holding held by the appellants therein. However, if at all the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Eluru, was aggrieved by order dated 17.06.1982, the only option available to him was either to file a review petition before the appellate authority or a revision before this Court. But surprisingly, after more than 23 years, the order dated 17.06.1982 passed by the appellate authority is sought to be reviewed by the Authorised Officer in the guise of reviewing the order dated 16.11.1981 passed by the primary authority, which was already challenged before the appellate authority and attained finality. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the very review petition filed by the Authorised Officer was not maintainable, in the teeth of attainment of finality of the order dated 17.06.1982 of the appellate authority, and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order dated 07.01.2005 is set aside and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the subject property. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 18.11.2010 v v