IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH (26TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5800 of 2002 Between: K Sudhakar Reddy & others … Petitioners And: Government of A.P., by its Authorized Officer, Chittoor … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5800 of 2002 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order 29.12.2000 in LRAC No.3 of 1989 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Chittoor, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed confirming the order dated 29.10.1976 in CC No.1305/MPL/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Madanapalle. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. One K. Narasimha Reddy, father of the petitioners 1 to 3, filed declaration under Section 8(1) of the A.P.L.R. (COAH) Act 1973. His wife Saraswathamma filed separate declaration. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Madanapalle, clubbed both the petitions and passed common orders 29.10.1976 declaring that the declarant in CC No.1305/MPL/75 held surplus extent of 9.8514 S.H. as on the crucial date of 01.01.1975. Aggrieved by the same, Narasimha Reddy preferred appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Chittoor. Saraswathamma also filed separate appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in LRAC Nos.490 and 560 of 1977 respectively. Both the said appeals were disposed of by common order dated 04.07.1978 setting aside the order of the lower Tribunal and remanding the matter for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to adduce evidence. While so, Narasimha Reddy on 30.09.1980 and his legal representatives-petitioners herein were impleaded. Subsequent to the remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal conducted fresh enquiry and held that Narasimha Reddy was holding excess land to the extent of 5.6780 S.H. as on the notified date of 01.01.1975 and directed the legal heirs to surrender the excess land. His wife Saraswathamma was held to be upholding 0.3946 S.H. land in excess. Aggrieved by the order in respect of K.Narasimha Reddy, the petitioners herein filed an appeal LRAC No.3 of 1989. By impugned judgment, the said appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present revision. 4. According to the petitioners, as per the partition deed dated 09.09.1957, the properties shown in ‘E’ schedule should be excluded from the holding of Narasimha Reddy. They further contended that under the Will 05.01.1935, certain properties were given to the wife of Narasimha Reddy and to his 3 sisters and their children and the said items ought to have been excluded. They further contended that the cart tracks noted by the Commissioner and the land sold by the declarant under the agreement of sale ought to have been excluded. They also contended that the land in C and D schedule are in possession of third parties by virtue of registered sale deeds and they have to be excluded. 5. In the partition deed dated 31.08.1957, the Will dated 05.01.1935 executed by Venkata Konda Reddy, adopted father of Narasimha Reddy, is referred to. As per the said Will, A and C schedule properties were given to his wife Akkayamma with limited rights and B schedule properties were given to their sisters and their children. The sisters of Venkata Konda Reddy or their children have not filed any declaration. In the partition in 1957, Narasimha Reddy effected division of the properties among himself, his wife and sons. The Tribunal has computed holding of the declaration in accordance with the partition deed only. The Tribunal has reduced the extent of 0.1011 S.H. on account of the change of classifications. A Commissioner was appointed to make a local inspection of the lands and taking into consideration the Commissioner’s report, excluded some of the lands, which were not serving agricultural purpose. The claim for exclusion of the cart tracks was rightly rejected, as they were not plan marked. The petitioners claim that some of the lands in B schedule are in possession of third parties under agreement of sale. The Tribunal has ignored the said agreements of sale in view of the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1982 SC 913 and included those lands. 6. Though the petitioners claim that some of the lands in C and D schedule are in possession of third parties by virtue of registered sale deeds, no evidence was produced in support thereof and therefore, the said claim for exclusion was also rejected. The Tribunal has excluded an extent of 2.4549 S.H., as the said land was given away to Saraswathamma at the time of the customary divorce. After excluding the lands, which were treated as pot karab and making reduction on account of the change of classification and excluding the lands which were shown in the other holdings and the land, which was given to Saraswathamma at the time of customary divorce as against the original declaration of surplus to the extent of 10.8514 SH, the Tribunal after remand, after reconsideration arrived at the total holding of 6.6780 SH and surplus holding to the extent of 5.6780 SH. The appellate Tribunal after re-appreciation of the evidence available on record held that the Tribunal has correctly arrived at the surplus holding after duly excluding all the permissible extents. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and the claim for further exclusion of certain extents have been rightly rejected. The impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.07.2011 bss