THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.5537 of 2007 Date:27.01.2011 Between: Mudireddy Malla Reddy ……….. Petitioner. And The State of A.P., rep by its Special Tahsildar for Land Reforms, no w represented by his Successor in office namely Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajupalem, Proddatur, Kadapa District. ……. Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.5537 of 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa in L.R.A.T No.1 of 2005. The dispute is with regard to Acs.10.58 cents of land in S.No.119 of Nelaturu Village of Duvur Mandal. The father of the petitioner late Mudireddy Subba Reddy filed a declaration under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act 1973 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) showing certain lands including the above referred disputed land. After conducting due enquiry, the Tribunal found that the declarant was holding excess land of 2.4516 standard holdings in excess of ceiling area. Aggrieved by the same, the original declarant preferred an Appeal Case Nos.304 of 1977 and 229 of 1977 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal modified the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and ultimately reduced the surplus holding of the declarant as 0.3795 standard holdings. Not satisfied with the same, the declarant preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.1933 of 1978 and the same was disposed of on 5.12.1978. Then notice issued under Section 10 (3) of the Act directing the declarant to surrender 0.3795 standard holdings was issued, when the matter was pending with the Tribunal, the Tribunal again passed orders on 25.10.1979 modifying the earlier orders and holding that an extent of Ac.10.58 cents in S.No.119 of Nelatur Village, Duvvur Mandal i.e., disputed land was wrongly computed to be the holding of the declarant and that the original declarant was a non-surplus holder. Then the Tribunal has again passed orders on 24.7.1989 holding that the Tribunal suo motu cannot review its own orders and therefore, the orders dated 25.10.1979 are invalid and confirmed the earlier of the orders holding that the declarant should surrender the land equivalent to 0.3795 standard holdings. Aggrieved by the same, the declarant filed an appeal in L.R.A.T.No.2 of 1990, which was dismissed on 23.11.1992. Then the Land Reforms Tribunal issued notice in Form-VI under Rule 7 (1) to surrender the land equivalent to 0.3795 standard holdings. Then the declarant again challenging the same in C.R.P.No.1600 of 1998 before this Court. The matter was remitted to the Primary Tribunal and then the Primary Tribunal, after issuing notices to all the parties and after hearing both the parties, again held that the earlier order revising the original order is invalid and directed the Tribunal to surrender the excess land. Again the matter was carried in appeal in L.R.A.T.No.2 of 2002, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal again remitted the matter to the Primary Tribunal and then the land Reforms Tribunal by orders dated 22.8.2005 held that the declarant’s family unit possess 0.3795 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area and therefore, they are liable to surrender the same to the Government. The same was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.T No.1 of 2005. The Appellate Tribunal by elaborate order dismissed the appeal. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner who is the original declarant M. Subba Reddy has shown his Survey No.119 of Nelaturu Village of Duvur Mandal in his declaration. Even according to the case of the petitioner, the original owner of that land Polimera Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy had taken some amount as loan from his father late Subba Reddy and the original owner M. Subba Reddy could not pay the amount, and, therefore, his father had shown that the land in his declaration. Of course, it may be a fact that Polimera Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy had also shown that land in his declaration. This point was agitated on earlier occasion even when the matter was carried to this Court in C.R.P.No.1933 of 1978 and that contention was rejected by this Court by orders dated 5.12.1978. In view of the same, it is clear that the subsequent order dated 24.7.1979 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal is not expected to revise its own order and it has no power of review. It is for the authorities either to accept his surrender of any land or reject if there is any dispute with regard to said land. In view of the same, I do not see any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. However, this order does not come in the way of Land Reforms Tribunal in once again making an exercise to ascertain whether there is any dispute with regard to this land. The Tribunal may issue a notice to Sri Polimera Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy and decide the matter in accordance with law. If the Tribunal finds that there is dispute, then the petitioner is bound to surrender alternate land. Subject to the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:27.02.2011 mrb