THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4619, 4527, 4627, 4658 AND 4659 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: Since common question arises in all these revisions, they are taken up together for disposal. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing on behalf of the first respondent. The petitioners herein are the third parties, claiming to be purchasers and in long possession in respect of land in Survey No.476 situated in Guthenadeevi Village, I.Polavaram Mandal. They seek to assail the proceedings under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 {“the Act” for brevity}, whereby the authorities are trying to acquire the said land towards excess in the surrender proceedings. Hence, the revisions. The main ground on which the petitioners canvass is to the effect that in this enquiry pertaining to the present declaration, the said land was already excluded and therefore, the question of proceeding against the said land towards any excess does not arise. Surprisingly, it is seen from the common order of the appellate authority while disposing of all the appeals preferred by the petitioners herein to the effect that though enquiry in the said surrender proceedings under Section 10 of the Act in L.C.C.No.1010/MMD/75 was already completed, the lands which were shown in Table-I namely Survey Nos.470/5, 470/6B, 469/2, 472/8, 474/2 and 475/1 of I.Polavaram Mandal, Guthenadeevi Village, were proposed for surrender. However, it was stated that since no objection is forthcoming, instead of selecting any of the aforesaid lands, the authorities tried to pick of their own land in Survey No.476 to an extent of Acs.9.41 cents towards the excess for the purpose of accepting towards the surrender. It is this action on the part of the authorities being aggrieved against. Even on a reading of the orders of both the Tribunal and the appellate authorities, any decision taken was of no notice or even there is any such fresh proposal to proceed against the said Survey No.476. Be that as it may, in the several documents which have been filed by the respondents namely, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, in support of the application 3270 of 2007 where they sought to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court, one of the proceedings is the order dated 30.12.1980 in L.R.A.No.60 of 1980 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, East Godavari at Amalapuram, wherein considering the very land in Survey No.476, it was held as under. “Subbaraju is the decalarant in L.C.C.No.1009/MMD/75. Subbaraju’s sons Venkatapathiraju and China Suryanarayanaraju are the declarants in L.C.C.No.1010/MMD/75 and 879/MMD/75 respectively. The case records in the above C.Cs. were sent for and perused. A perusal of the case records filed relating to the C.C.No.1009/75 would show that Subbaraju has shown the entire Acs.88-70 cents of land covered by this Survey Number in his declaration and it was also included in his holding as per the verification report. The order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 6.12.77 passed in the said C.C. also shows that the entire Acs.88-70 cents was computed in the holding of Subbaraju and that of his two sons as each is entitled to 1/3rd share. Thus, it can be seen that the said S.No.476, Acs.28-70 of Guttanadevi was already computed in the holding of Subbaraju and his two sons and it has also become final by virtue of the orders dated 27.2.70 passed in L.R.A.Nos.777, 778 and 820 of 1978 on the file of this Tribunal. A scrutiny of the above evidence would clearly show that the declarant is not having any interest in R.S.No.476 and is not in possession of the same and it is only to lay a future claim in respect of his alleged 1/5th share the declarant has shown the same mischievously in his declaration. Simply because he has shown it in his declaration, it cannot be computed in his holding as he is not entitled to the same and is not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The evidence which I have extracted above, would show that he is neither entitled to the same nor is in possession and enjoyment of the same at any time. In this view of the matter, R.S.No.476, Acs.18-80 cents is liable to be excluded from the computation of the holding of the declarant. Accordingly it is excluded.” On a reading of the aforesaid order and also on perusal of the entire record, it is quite apparent that this land was not at all included in the holding of the original declarant for whose excess surrender proceedings were initiated and it is being focused against Survey No.476. As long as a land is not excluded in the holding of the declarant, it cannot be said that such land can be formed part of the said survey number or can be proceeded against. More so, when it is being in possession of all along, it could not have been selected to be proceeded against. Thus, there is no reason at all, much less any decision either in law or facts for selecting the said land in Survey No.476. Learned Government Pleader also has not pointed out as to how or on what basis or even from the entire record, which has been filed in these revisions on their behalf, the said land can be proceeded against. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the land in Survey No.476 as seem to be in possession of the petitioners herein cannot be proceeded against since the said land cannot be formed part of the holding or included in the holding of the declarant whose excess sought to be proceeded with. All the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the common judgment dated 07.07.2006 in L.R.A.Nos.153 of 1995, 154 of 1995, 155 of 1995, 156 of 1995, 160 of 1995, 161 of 1995 and 162 of 1995 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Court, East Godavari, Kakinada, is set aside to the extent of accepting the land in Survey No.476 I.Polavaram Mandal, Guthenadeevi Village, towards the excess surrender of the declarant. However, it is made clear that the parties are at liberty to proceed against any other land, which forms part of or any other alternative land in the holding of the declarant. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 27th August 2010 RRB