THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2483 of 2008 Date of order: 6.8.2010 Between: Katari Sankaraiah and others …Petitioners and Kukati Rajeswaramma and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2483 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioners after obtaining leave of this Court on the ground that they are purchasers of property from the respondents 3 and 4 herein who were arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 before the lower appellate Tribunal, Nellore. The petitioners’ grievance is that the respondents 3 and 4 having sold the property to the petitioners have not participated in the proceedings before the lower appellate Tribunal and thereby an order adversely affecting the title of the respondents 3 and 4 was passed by the lower appellate court which is impugned herein. The petitioners are purchasers from the respondents 3 and 4 and therefore are directly affected by the said impugned order. They also stated that they were not aware of the aforesaid order and as soon as they came to know of the same, they have approached this Court by the present revision and this Court while issuing notice, granted an interim order of status quo on 27.4.2007 and subsequently by an order dated 23.6.2008 leave sought for by the petitioners was granted and on 5.6.2009 revision petition was admitted. To the extent relevant, the brief facts are that the original declarant in CC No. 2339/NLR/75, having died before the surrender proceedings were completed, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore-cum-Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore passed orders dated 26.5.1995 recognising the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as legal representatives of the deceased-declarant on the ground that the lands of the declarant have been settled on the said three persons under a registered settlement deed bearing document No. 175/80, dated 9.4.1980. Curiously the said order was questioned by the first respondent herein before the lower appellate Tribunal on the ground that she alone succeeds to the estate of the deceased under non-testamentary succession. Notices issued to the respondents 3 and 4 invoked no response from them, as they already sold the land. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, though supported the order of the primary Tribunal-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 26.5.1995, the appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal, by holding that the first respondent herein alone is the legal representative of the deceased-declarant and thereby the status of the respondents 3 and 4 as legal representatives of the deceased was nullified. As stated above, aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed by the purchasers from the respondents 3 and 4. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. I am unable to appreciate as to how the first respondent can be said to be aggrieved by the order of the primary Tribunal recognizing her along with respondents 3 and 4 as legal heirs of the deceased declarant. The said order was apparently passed by the primary Tribunal on the basis of the properties settled on all three of them. The legal representatives are, therefore, those on whom the properties of the deceased devolve and to the extent of devolution of the estate of the deceased, such persons can be treated as legal representatives. So far as the respondents 3 and 4 are concerned, though they are the sons of sisters of the deceased-declarant, the properties had been settled on them and the first respondent under the registered settlement deed. It was also contended that the said document, though styled as settlement deed, is, in fact, in the nature of a will and thereby it has the implication of a testamentary succession. In spite of the fact that the Government supported the order of the primary Tribunal and in spite of the contention that the said document is in the nature of a will, the lower appellate court did not discuss the nature of the document and only on the assumption that the law of survivorship by intestate succession alone applies proceeded to declare that the first respondent is alone legal heir of the deceased- declarant. As stated above the first respondent could not have been aggrieved by the order of the primary Tribunal nor the appellate authority is justified in nullifying the status of legal heir conferred on the respondents 3 and 4 without discussing the terms of the said document and without considering whether it is an alienation contemplated under Section 17 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or it is a will which is required to be given effect to. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly not sustainable for more than one reasons as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that there have been several subsequent events with respect to the surrender of the excess land and in view of that, the present revision petition which is highly belated ought not be entertained. Firstly this revision is preferred only after knowledge of the petitioners about the impugned order and this Court has already entertained the revision petition and granted an interim order of status quo which is in force. Secondly the subsequent events would have no force on validity or otherwise of the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal shall re- consider LRA No. 2 of 1995 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. The petitioners shall also have liberty to seek impleadment in the said appeal and agitate their contentions before the lower appellate Tribunal. The lower appellate Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal, preferably before the end of December, 2010 and till then, the interim order of status quo passed by this Court and continued till now, shall continue to operate. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 6.8.2010 KR