THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5042 of 1994 Date:20.11.2009 Between: K. Jaganath Reddy and others. .. Petitioners and The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, and others...Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5042 of 1994 ORDER: This revision is directed against the common order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal(LRAT), Ranga Reddy District and Medak Districts, Hyderabad, in L.R.A.Nos.121 and 130 of 1994. The petitioners herein had filed L.R.A.Nos.121 and 130 of 1994 against the proceedings relating to declaration and surrender passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, in C.C.No.T/2043/75 dated 15.09.1993. LRAT has considered both the appeals and dismissed the same under common order dated 15.11.1994. Questioning the said order insofar as L.R.A.No.130 of 1994 is concerned, the petitioners had filed C.R.P.No.5364 of 1994 and insofar as L.R.A.No.121 of 1994 is concerned, they filed the present C.R.P.No.5042 of 1994. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the earlier date of hearing made several submissions on merits, that the proceedings as to surrender had been taken up by the Tribunal suo motu without notice to the petitioners. He also contended that the very same land with which the petitioners are concerned was allotted to their predecessor in interest and the same was shown in the declaration filed by the said predecessor in interest. LRAT reconsidered the said declaration and had also accepted the said declaration and the lands in question, namely, in survey Nos.109, 110 and 111, admeasuring Acs.7.33 cents, Acs.6.93 cents and Acs.11.65 cents respectively situated at Nagasamundar Village, Yalal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, had been included and accepted in the holding of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the very same lands cannot be treated within the holding of the deceased second respondent and consequently, surrender proceedings regarding thereto are not sustainable. During the hearing, it transpired that there was another C.R.P. referred to above and today the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order of this Court passed in said C.R.P.No.5364 of 1994 dated 28.03.2002. By the aforesaid order, the impugned order in L.R.A.No.130 of 1994 was set aside and the said appeal was remanded to LRAT for fresh disposal. Since the impugned order is common in the aforesaid C.R.P as well as the present C.R.P, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Following the order dated 28.03.2002 passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.5364 of 1994, this C.R.P. is also allowed by setting aside the impugned order and remanding L.R.A.No.121 of 1994 to LRAT to be heard and disposed of along with L.R.A.No.130 of 1994, which was already remanded by virtue of aforesaid order. It is needless to mention that LRAT shall issue notices afresh, hear the counsel for all the parties and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. No order as to costs. __________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J) 20th November, 2009 GHN