IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 OF 2002 Between: Sardar Affan Khan (Died) Khader Affan Khan and another. --- Petitioners. AND The Authorized Officer, (Land Reforms, R.R. District). --- Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 OF 2002 ORDER: This Revision is filed by the legal representatives of original declarant in C.C. No.1484/M/1975. The said declaration filed by father of the petitioners attained finality by order of Land Reforms Tribunal dated 27-05-1976 holding that the declarant to surrender excess land of 0-1170 standard holding. Later, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1977 was amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1977 by adding Section 4 (A), whereunder, the benefit of one family holding was given to two major sons. Since the petitioners herein are major sons of the declarant, they made an application to redetermine the holding on the ground that they are major sons on the notifying date. However, that application was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond permissible 60 days and the said order was upheld by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as well, by order dated 19-08-1978. While no proceedings were taken by the petitioners to question the said order, they however filed a fresh application on 08-02-1983 again seeking benefit under Section 4 (A) of the Amendment Act. But the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 16-10-1985 and the Appeal against that in L.R.A.10 of 1986 was also dismissed on 31-08-1987. The said order dated 31-08- 1987 was questioned in C.R.P. No.3624 of 1988 before this Court, wherein the said Revision was dismissed subject to the observation that it is open for the petitioners to file a review petition before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioners thereupon filed a Review Petition on 06-07-1998 which has been dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this Revision. Heard Mr. V. Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. While the learned counsel for the petitioners has given a chronology of events, submits that in view of the undisputed position that the Amendment Act, 10 of 1977 giving specific benefit of one family holding to each major son of the declarant as on the notified date, has been frustrated as the Tribunals below rejected the application on the ground of delay. He also contends that in view of the undisputed fact that period of 60 days prescribed under Section 7 (3) of the Amendment Act, 1977 being held to be only directory, but not mandatory, as per the decision reported in M. Jenny Vs. State of A.P.[1], rejection of petitioners’ application on the ground of delay was not justified. He, therefore seeks that the Review ought to have been entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. While there is considerable force on merits in the contentions, the petitioners cannot be granted the relief for two principle reasons; firstly, that the order of this Court in C.R.P. No.3624/1988, dated 26-02- 1993 holds that fresh application filed by the applicants on 08-02-1983 for redetermination to give benefit of Section 4 (A) is not maintainable, in that view of the matter, even if the Review is allowed, no relief can be granted in the said application. Secondly, while this Court permitted the petitioners to file a review under the order dated 26-02- 1993 in C.R.P. No.3624 of 1988, the review, in fact, was filed much later i.e., on 06-07-1998 i.e., five years time taken by the petitioners to file the review in spite of the liberty granted by this Court by order in C.R.P. No.3624 of 1988, reasons unexplained. The determination, which was done on 27-05-1976, therefore, attained finality and excess land of the declarant must have been taken possession and third party interests might have been created during the last four decades. At this distance of time, it would not be appropriate to disturb the same. In view of that, no relief can be granted. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Dt. 08-07-2011. DSH [1] 1979 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 452