THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9358 of 2003 Date of Order:17.03.2011 Between: Dasari Venkata Lakshmi and another ..Petitioners and Sub-collector-cum-Presiding Officer, Land Reforms and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9358 of 2003 ORDER :- The petitioners have filed declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and on finalisation of the declarations surrendered the lands in L.C.C.No.1919/RJY/75, dated 11.09.2000, in excess of the ceiling area, which was accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 24.02.1996 under Section 10(3) of the Act. While so, on a petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent-Sub-Collector issued notice, dated 13.04.2003, informing the petitioners that in view of the claims filed by the 2nd respondent against the action taken by the Tribunal for taking possession of the land in survey Nos.201/2 and 203 of Gokavaram Mandal, the matter is posted for enquiry on 26.04.2003 and, therefore, the petitioners were called upon to attend the Tribunal with all relevant records pertaining to the above two survey numbers. Questioning the notice issued by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed contending that in L.C.C.No.1919/RJY/75, dated 11.09.2000, the Land Reforms Tribunal has accepted the surrender of the excess land by the petitioners and rejected the claim filed by the 2nd respondent-Dasari Kasi Viswanadha Veera Venkata Satyanarayana that the lands taken possession by the Government belongs to him and that though Sri S.R.V.V.V.Satyanarayana filed an objection petition, he has not filed any evidence to show that the lands are under his possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the lands in survey No.201/2 part and 203 measuring an extent of Ac.1-00 and Ac.1-45 cents surrendered by the petitioners/declarants and taken possession by the Government is final and the claim of the 2nd respondent is rejected. In spite of the same, issuance of the notice by the 1st respondent-Sub- Collector, is arbitrary and illegal. Once the surrender proceedings are accepted by passing an order under Section 9 of the Act, the authorities have no right to re- open the matter and orders be given finality as held by the Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. Admittedly, the notice issued by the Sub-Collector’s Office is only for hearing the matter. Whether any review is filed against the earlier orders passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal etc., are not mentioned in the notice. Suffice it to say, the petitioners can put forth all the contentions now advanced in this writ petition before the 1st respondent and, if any, orders are passed adverse to him, he may carry the matter in appeal under Section 20 of the Act. In view of the same, the present writ petition cannot be entertained against the issuance of the notice. Since no orders adverse to the petitioners have been passed by the authorities, the notice issued by the 1st respondent cannot be interdicted in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 17, 2011 Lmv