IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2785 OF 2003 Between: Balleda Sripathi and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2785 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act, is directed against the order, dated 25.04.2003, in L.R.A.General Register No.711, on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam, whereunder and whereby, the appeal filed to set aside the order, dated 03.03.2003, in L.C.C.No.185/75/Ichapuram, on the file of Primary Tribunal, Tekkali – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, was rejected. 2. Heard. 3. The appeal was filed by the petitioners herein before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. That appeal was rejected on the ground that the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the Primary Tribunal and it is not known whether they were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased declarant before the Primary Tribunal and that the memorandum of appeal does not show that they are legal representatives of the deceased declarant. 4. Normally, only a party to a suit, or other proceedings, adversely affected by a decree or order or any of his representatives-in-interest may file an appeal. But a person who is not a party to a decree or order may, with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order, if he is either bound by the decree or order or is aggrieved by it or is otherwise prejudicially affected by it. The test whether a person is an ‘aggrieved person’ is to see whether he has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially effected his interests either pecuniary or otherwise. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties to the lis before the Primary Tribunal. Similarly, no material is filed to show that they were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased declarant. Similarly, they have not stated in the appeal grounds that they are legal representatives of the deceased declarant and that they have some interest in the lis, so as to pursue the same in the appeal. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the appeal and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 17, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2785 OF 2003 February 17, 2011