HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. Nos.2301, 3654, 2751 & 2582 of 2008 Dated 12-8-2010 C.R.P. No.2301 of 2008: Between: Yeddala Sundararami Reddy and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Nellore and others. …Respondents. C.R.P. No.3654 of 2008: Between: Yeddala Seshamma and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Nellore and others. …Respondents. C.R.P. No.2751 of 2008: Between: Aasam Jagadeeswara Rao and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Nellore and others. …Respondents. C.R.P. No.2582 of 2008: Between: Malapati Obul Reddy and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Nellore and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. Nos.2301, 3654, 2751 & 2582 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: All the petitioners in these revision petitions are purchasers of various extents of land from the declarants in C.C.No.1976 of 75/GDR/75 and C.C.No.1977/GDR/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur. All the alienations undisputedly are after 1.1.1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2301 and 3654 of 2008 has produced a copy of objections filed by them in the surrender proceedings showing the extent purchased by each of such transferee. It is not necessary to go into the other details in view of the order proposed to be made. Learned counsel agreed that the declarant was found holding surplus land to the extent of 2.5076 S.H. out of which he had surrendered 0.7395 S.H. in response to the notice issued to him under Section 10 (2) of the Act. He was therefore required to surrender balance extent of 1.7681 S.H. For the purpose of surrendering the aforesaid balance extent of land, he had however, not filed any surrender statement. Thereupon, it is stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur that notice dated 18-8-2001 was issued to him but by then, he was no more and the said notice was served on the legal representative on 1-9-2001. Since no objections were filed by the legal representatives, the Revenue Divisional Officer under his proceedings dated 20-1-2003 decided to take over the lands belonging to the transferees towards surrender of excess land. All the alienees were served with the notices informing them that the Revenue Divisional Officer would take over the lands as specified in the notice and in response thereto, alienees have filed objections and the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.2301, 3654 of 2008 have filed a copy of objections during the hearing and it is represented by both the counsel that similar objections are filed by the petitioners in other C.R.Ps. also. The copy of the said objection which was originally not filed along with the C.R.Ps. is taken on record. The Revenue Divisional Officer disregarded objections filed by alienees and issued orders under challenge on 20-1- 2003 instructing the Mandal Revenue Officer to take physical possession of the land referred to in the said proceedings. Against the aforesaid proceedings, all the transferees have filed the Land Reforms Appeal No.1 of 2003 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nellore but under the impugned order, appellate Court has rejected the said appeal which gave rise to these revision petitions at the instant of the appellants/alienees. It may be noted that though the appeal was filed by all of them, the different set of appellants have filed these four revision petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out several errors of law which according to them have violated the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974, Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy the learned counsel primarily contends that under Section 10 (5) of the Act, the Government would not accept encumbered land especially in view of the petitioners’ objections showing undisputed lands of the declarant available, which would suffice the extent of surplus land required to be surrendered by the declarant. The objections on behalf of the alienees primarily has stated that though they have purchased different extents of land under registered sale deeds, apart from the aforesaid lands, the declarants have substantial extents of land which are totally unencumbered and can be taken over by the Government towards the balance surplus land. The undisputed lands have been shown in schedule under para 6 of the objections but without considering the objections, primary Tribunal as well as the appellate Tribunal have confirmed the impugned proceedings taking over the land of alienees towards the balance of surplus land of the declarant. It is noticed from the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20-1-2003 referred to above that the objections filed by the alienees are disregarded on the ground that these alienations are in violation of Section 17 of the Act. The appellate authority also has not taken into consideration the objections and has rejected the same on the ground that they are not tenable. The appellate authority also stated that the objections filed by the alienees have been considered by the Land Reforms Tribunal and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Learned Government Pleader submits that all the alienees without doubt are hit by Section 17 of the Act and as such, none of the alienees have any legal right to claim that their land ought not to be proceeded against. I am satisfied from a reading of the order of primary Tribunal as well as the appellate Tribunals, that the purpose of giving notice to respondents and filing objections by them are defeated if the objections are not to be considered at all. It may be that the petitioners are alienees in contravention of Section 17 of the Act. However, that aspect has to be considered in the light of mandate under Section 10 (5) of the Act especially when the petitioners have categorically stated in their statement that unencumbered and clear lands of the declarant are available as per schedule at para 6 of their objections. It is no doubt right on the part of the learned Government Pleader to contend that the surrender of excess land must be accomplished and there cannot be any adjudication with respect to the holding of declarant afresh. However, the fact that there is no consideration of the objections of the applicants, also cannot be overlooked. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to allow these revisions with the following directions: The Primary Tribunal shall take into consideration the objections filed by the petitioners. If the objections filed by the petitioners are not on record, the petitioners have liberty to submit the additional objections with a copy of their earlier objections, which shall be considered by the Tribunal keeping in view the purpose of Section 10 (5) of the Act so as to ensure that the State obtains, as far as possible, the unencumbered lands towards surplus extent from the declarants. In the event of Primary Tribunal not being satisfied of the availability of unencumbered land from the said declarant, the primary Tribunal shall be free to proceed against the land of the petitioners or any other lands of declarant towards surrender of the surplus land of the declarant, by following the procedure in accordance with the Land Reforms Act and Rules thereunder. The Registry shall retransmit the records if any with this order to the primary Tribunal within one week and the primary Tribunal shall thereafter issue notice to the petitioners. All the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assured this Court that the petitioners shall appear through their counsel before the primary Tribunal on 15th September, 2010 on which date they shall file their additional objections as above and thereafter, the primary Tribunal shall determine the issues as directed above expeditiously. Accordingly, these Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 12-8-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. Nos.2301, 3654, 2751 & 2582 of 2008 Dated 12-8-2010