IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.979 of 2001 Between: Suggula Veeraraghavaiah. ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Sub-Collector, Tenali, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. B.V.S. SRIRAM PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is by the declarant under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). This revision itself is directed against the notice issued by the respondent – Sub-Collector, Tenali in Rc.No.CC.No.1201/RAP/75 dated 02.10.2000. 2. By the said notice the petitioner was informed that his Civil Appeal No.11718 of 1988 was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 29.03.1990 confirming the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and based on that the petitioner was asked to surrender surplus land equivalent to 0.2998 Standard Holding (SH) to the Government as per final orders in C.C.No.1201/RAP/75. The said notice issued to the petitioner/declarant is questioned by him in this revision petition on the ground that the lands of the declarant, which are in possession of the lessees under the agreement, have been computed in the holding of the declarant but they are liable to be computed in the holding of the lessees also. It is further contended that the lessees have been given notices by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur dated 21.04.1998 and 26.05.1998 requiring the lessees to file declaration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that until such declaration is filed by the lessees and the same is finalized, the petitioner/declarant, in the capacity of a owner, cannot be asked to surrender lands. In support of the said contention reliance is placed upon Section 12 of the Act as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF AP v. M. LAKSHMI DEVI[1]. 4. Heard both the learned counsel and perused records. 5. The impugned notice itself states that the declaration so far as the petitioner is concerned was finalized after several rounds of litigation up to this Court. By last of the orders of this Court in CRP.No.5075 of 1981 dated 01.06.1987, a direction was given that the lands covered by the agreement of lease are liable to be included in the holding of the petitioner/declarant as well as that of the lessees. The said direction was issued by this Court on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF AP v. MOHD. ASHRAFUDDIN [AIR 1982 SC 913]. The lease agreements in the present case are covered by Ex.A21 dated 15.06.1969, Ex.A22 also dated 15.06.1969 and Ex.A25 dated 25.05.1968. Based on the said orders of this Court, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal had recomputed the holding of the petitioner by including the above three leased lands in his holding and thereby on re-determination of his holding he was required to surrender excess land of 0.2998 SH. While the orders of this Court attained finality so far as CRP.No.5075 of 1981 dated 01.06.1987 is concerned, the petitioner questioned the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Guntur in re-determining the holding of the declarant by order dated 21.04.1988 demanding the petitioner to surrender excess land o 0.2998 SH. The petitioner questioned the said order in appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA.No.9 of 1988, which was dismissed on 18.08.1992 and the petitioner was unsuccessful in the revision before this Court as well as in civil appeal before the Supreme Court, which is referred to above. Thus, the said order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Guntur requiring the petitioner to surrender 0.2998 SH towards excess land had attained finality. The petitioner now seeks to interdict the said proceedings on the ground that determination so far as lessees are concerned is not yet completed. 6. I am unable to appreciate the said contention inasmuch as the standard holding arrived at against the petitioner cannot perhaps undergo any further reduction even if the declarations, which the lessees are called upon to file, are finalized. The contention based on Section 12 of the Act, to my mind, is misconceived as even if the aforesaid lands are included or excluded from the holding of the lessees the very same lands are liable to be included in the holding of the petitioner/declarant and as such, any computation with regard to declaration filed by the lessees would not reduce the excess holding now determined against the petitioner. As a consequence of Section 12 of the Act, at the most, these lands would revert back to the petitioner, in which case, his holding would go up but not get reduced. I am unable to appreciate any infirmity in the impugned notice. The civil revision petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 30, 2010 DSK [1] 1993 (1) APLJ 36 (SC)