IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3989 OF 2006 AND 4903 OF 2006 C.R.P.No.3989 OF 2006: Between: Smt. Pentumatsa Satyavathamma .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.4903 OF 2006: Between: Dr. Kalidindi Ananda Jagapathi Varma .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3989 OF 2006 AND 4903 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3989 OF 2006: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 24.07.2006, in L.R.A.No.8 of 1997, on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru, West Godavari. The petitioner herein is respondent No.2 in the L.R.A. 2. Heard. 3. L.R.A.No.8 of 1997 is filed by respondent No.2 herein against respondent No.1 herein. In pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 15.03.2001, in C.R.P.No.58 of 1999, petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the said L.R.A. The claim of the petitioner herein is that she is the owner of Ac.0-90 ½ cents of land situated in R.S.No.261/1 of Pennada Village and that the same should be excluded from the holding of respondent No.2/declarant. The appellate Tribunal vide the impugned judgment has not excluded the said land from the holding of respondent No.2 herein. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner herein is that no opportunity was given to her to adduce any evidence before the appellate Tribunal, in spite of the directions of this Court in C.R.P.No.58 of 1999, dated 15.03.2001, which reads as follows: “…… Having regard to the language of Rule 16 (7) of the Act, it must be held that the claim of any person other than the declarant will have to be necessarily considered with all serious earnestness and application for impleadment or for setting aside the orders of the Tribunal cannot be considered in a casual manner as is done by the Appellate Tribunal in the present case.” The case of the petitioner has to be established to show that whether the land in dispute was declared as surplus land of declarant or whether the father, who was younger brother of respondent No.2 herein, executed a registered settlement deed, dated 18.09.1957, settling an extent of Ac.2-00 of land in R.S.No.261/1 of Pennada Village at the time of her marriage or not. Unless that issue raised by the petitioner is resolved, surplus land owned by the brother of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.3989 of 2006 is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment, dated 24.07.2006, in L.R.A.No.8 of 1997, on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru, West Godavari, and remanding the matter to the appellate Tribunal to give opportunity to the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence with regard to the settlement deed, Ex.A1, and rebuttal evidence, if any, by the respondents and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. C.R.P.No.4903 OF 2006: 6. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 24.07.2006, in L.R.A.No.8 of 1997, on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru, West Godavari, by the appellant/declarant therein. 7. In view of the order passed in C.R.P.No.3989 of 2006 setting aside the judgment, dated 24.07.2006, in L.R.A.No.8 of 1997, on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru, West Godavari, no orders are required to be passed in this revision petition. 8. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.4903 of 2006 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3989 OF 2006 AND 4903 OF 2006 January 27, 2011