THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12338, 12016, 12099, 12344, 12913, 12244, 12251 and 12248 of 2008 Dated:19.08.2010 WRIT PETITION No.12338 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Iqbal and others .. Petitioners And Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12338, 12016, 12099, 12344, 12913, 12244, 12251 and 12248 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: All these cases are filed assailing orders/proceedings in Form IX under Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), Rules, 1974 (the Rules) being C.C.No.CH/2531/75, dated 19.02.2008. The said notice/order was issued to legal heirs of Smt.Rani Radha Lakshimi Bai directing them to deliver possession of their land which is declared surplus by the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT)-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division. The brief facts of the matter, which are not seriously disputed, may be noticed. Late Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai was holder of a large extent of agricultural land. She filed declaration under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Land Reforms Act) declaring her agricultural holding in different villages comprised in Ammapally, Chowdarguda, Kacharam and Tolkatta of Moinabad and Shamshabad Mandals. LRT passed orders on 28.02.1983 declaring her as surplus holder to an extent of 13.9322 Standard Holdings (SH). Some of the purchasers, namely, Smt. V.Sumithra Devi etc., filed L.R.A.No.34 of 1994 successfully. Their appeal was allowed and matter was remanded to original authority. As a consequence thereof, LRT again passed order on 26.09.1995 directing deletion of land to an extent of 0.2945 SH. Thus, the owner Lakshmi Bai was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 13.6377 SH. Proceedings under Section 10 of the Act for surrender of the lands were initiated and after issuing Form X, some of the lands in Ammapally were taken over duly making necessary entries in the revenue records as Kharij Khatha. Subsequently, there were claims by persons claiming a share, who filed appeals before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT). The appeals were allowed on 05.11.2007 and LRT was directed to dispose of C.C.Nos.CH.2531/75, CH.2596/75 and CH/2797/75. After de novo exercise, the legal representatives of late Lakshmi Bai, namly, R.Vijay Kumar Rao and R.Vinod Kumar Rao were declared as surplus holders to an extent equivalent to 13.6377 SH. Proceedings were initiated for surrender and taking possession of the land declared as surplus and Form IX dated 19.02.2008 was issued. When the revenue officials went to the land in possession of the petitioners, they filed these Writ Petitions. The petitioners in W.P.No.12338 of 2008 claimed to have obtained Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) under Section 10 read with Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The petitioners in other Writ Petitions claimed to have purchased the land from Lakshmi Bai either prior to coming into force or after coming into force of the Land Reforms Act. In either case, they contend that they were not issued notices under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules. The Special Grade Deputy Collector, Chevella Division, filed counter affidavit bringing out the historical facts and events. The allegation made by the petitioners is that they were not issued notices either at the stage of proceedings under Section 10(2) or 10(3) of the Act as required under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules has not been specifically denied. A perusal of Rules 6 and 7 would show that even while processing the declaration under Rule 6, the LRT shall intimate in Form V to the declarant and holder of the land and to any other person interested to file objections. It is only after considering such objections, final order can be passed. Further, after conducting enquiry and issuing orders under Section 9 of the Act determining surplus holding of a declarant, issue of notice is mandatory as contemplated under Section 10(2) and (5) of the Act. This legal position is well settled. In K. Butchireddy v State of Andhra Pradesh[1], it was held: Any enqiry as to whether a land should be included in the holding of the pattedar, who is out of possession or the purchaser under an unregistered sale deed or agreement for sale who is in possession can be made as contemplated by Rule 6 only after notice to the person interested. An enquiry without such notice is vitiated with material irregularity. The notice under Rule 6(1) to all persons interested is evidently intended to ascertain whether a land which is sought to be included in the holding of one or the other declarant is in his possession or not. If it is not in his possession it cannot form part of his holding. A person who is reported to be in possession of the land under a purchase made by him from the pattedar is undoubtedly a person interested in retaining his possession. If the land held by him is included in the holding of another person who is merely a pattedar and is not in possession, that would certainly effect the interest of the purchaser. If the pattedar surrenders such land because that land is included in his holding although he is not in possession, that would create complications and would affect the rights of the persons in possession. In view of the admitted position that all the petitioners herein were not put on notice before taking of possession as stated by the Special Deputy Collector, the impugned notice dated 19.02.2008 insofar as the petitioners are concerned cannot be enforced. But this itself is not the end of the matter. As rightly pointed out by the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangala Area), the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 20 to LRAT. It is brought to the notice of this Court, the connected appeal being L.R.A.No.15 of 1990 is already pending on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge-cum-Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. If that be so, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal before the LRAT, Rangareddy. They are given six weeks time from today to prefer appeals against the original orders of the LRT and/or Form IX notice. As and when the appeals are filed the learned LRAT may consider the appeals and pass appropriate orders as per law. There shall be status quo regarding possession for a period of three months from today. These Writ Petitions are disposed of without any order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J Dated: 19.08.2010 Note:- Dispatch C.C. by 24.08.2010. (B/o) KH [1] 1978 (II) ALT NRC 7