THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6662 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner filed this revision under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, assailing the order dated 30.09.2005 in L.R.A.No.19 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms, Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 03.02.1997 in C.C.No.2949/GDV/75. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, who is the third party, claims to be the adopted son and the second respondent is the natural father of the minor petitioner. He claims to have been adopted on 13.08.1972 and the adoptive mother executed a Will dated 19.01.1973 bequeathing certain property in favour of the said money and subsequently, she died. It is in this regard; the property, which has been acquired by the said minor under the said Will, is in dispute in the present proceedings. The declarant has already been declared as surplus and the primary Tribunal, after holding a regular inquiry, accepted the said factum of adoption and also the acquisition of the said property by the said minor through his adoptive mother. Therefore, he sought to exclude from the hands of the original declarant. On further appeal, the lower appellate authority, once again taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, did not find favour and especially trying to place reliance on Section 7 (5) of the Act held that the second respondent, the original declarant, cannot be absolved of any such exclusion and necessarily, the said property has to be executed. Hence, the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the very provision on which reliance is placed by the lower appellate authority, namely Section 7 (5) of the Act, the same has been totally misinterpreted. In fact, it does not take any cause of such inclusion in favour of the adoptive declarant but it only compelled such inclusion with the natural father of any such adopted child, but not otherwise. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents herein submitted that having regard to the fact that both the adoption as well as the Will in dispute necessarily have to be proved. Further, it is also pointed out that for the first time, the property, which is alleged to have been declared under the aforesaid Will, in fact, does not belong to the mother but belongs to only the second respondent, the natural father, who happened to be the original declarant. Therefore, either way, Section 7 (5) of the Act would not in any way come in rescue. Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the ultimate question that arises for consideration is as to the scope and application of Section 7 (5) of the Act. For convenience sake, Section 7 (5) of the Act is extracted below. “Where on or after the 24th January, 1971, but before the notified date any person has been given in adoption, then the land held by such person immediately before the date of such adoption shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be held on the notified date by the family unit of which he was a member immediately before such adoption.” On a bare reading of the said provision, it amply transpires that wherever such adoption takes place or alleged to have taken place on or after 24th January 1971, necessarily such adoptive properties stand in his name and should necessarily have to be included within the holding of the declarant. Since the said expression used in the very said provision “any person has been given in adoption” and this refers to “the land held by such person”, such person needs only the person who has given adoption but not the person or persons, who have taken such adoption. In the circumstances, in case if it is held that the property actually belongs to the adopted family or parents, either the mother or father and it is that property, which the adopted boy acquires either by way of succession or even under the Will, necessarily, it cannot be said to belong to the lands that are included in the holding of the natural father. No doubt, the lower appellate Court while referring to the said provision, however, disbelieving the claim on either of the versions as to the adoption and proof of the Will, did not find favour with the contention of the petitioner herein. Since the learned Government Pleader now disputes that in the above circumstances, in case if it is found that the property belongs to the adopted parents, either to mother or the father, cannot be the case of the mother and necessarily it follows that the said property need not be included in the holding of the natural father. However, having regard to the dispute being raised now by the learned Government Pleader though already stated for the first time yet it follows a finding of fact, which is found absent as to the natural father i.e., the second respondent or that of the adopted mother. In the circumstances, the said facts have to be gone into by appropriate enquiry and necessary proof on behalf of the petitioner. Since the primary Tribunal has accepted the plea of the petitioner on all counts, it is felt desirable that the matter can safely be remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 30.09.2005 in L.R.A.No.19 of 2000 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court for enquiry and fresh disposal on merits, after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. It is also made clear that both the sides are at liberty to file any material evidence in support of their case. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 20th August 2010 RRB