IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3795 of 2008 and 6358 of 2009 BETWEEN The State of A.P. rep. by the Authorized Officer. ... PETITIONER AND Sabella Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondents: MR. N. SIVA REDDY MR. G. VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since a common question falls for consideration in both the revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners in support of both the revision petitions and Mr. N. Siva Reddy and Mr. G. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents in the respective revision petitions. 3. The revision petitions arise under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The contention of the respondents, who are declarants/legal representatives of the declarants, is that the lands in question being inam lands and the ryotwari patta having not yet granted to them, their inclusion in the holdings of the declarants is contrary to the scheme of the Act. The said contention was rejected by the primary tribunal by accepting the contention on behalf of the Authorized Officer that ryotwari pattas were already granted under the Inams Abolition Act and therefore, the said contention does not survive for consideration. On appeal, the lower appellate tribunal has set aside the said finding of the primary tribunal in view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in A.S.D REDDY v. STATE OF A.P[1] and held that with respect to the land covered under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition Conversion into Ryotwari Act, the said land cannot be included in the holdings of the declarants as long as ryotwari pattas in pursuance of the said Act are not granted. 4. It is the case of the declarants in CRP.No.3795 of 2008 that not even notice of enquiry is issued to them and the ryotwari pattas are not yet granted. Similarly, the respondents/declarants in CRP.No.6358 of 2009 also contend that no such proceedings for grant of ryotwari patta have progressed. The lower appellate tribunal while setting aside the said finding of the primary tribunal allowed the appeal by directing that as and when ryotwari pattas are granted, the declarants shall file an appropriate declaration, as provided under the Act. The said order of the lower appellate tribunal is sought to be revised at the instance of the petitioner/State. 5. So far as the legal position is concerned, the same is now well-settled not only by the decision in A.S.D REDDY’s case (1 supra) but also under the Full Bench judgment of this Court in YEDIRESWARAPU VEERAMM v. REDDPALLI SURUDAMMA[2], which was also approved by a Larger Bench in BUJJANNA v. TAHSILDAR, RAPUR TALUK[3] whereunder it is held that conversion of inam land into that of ryotwari takes place only on the date of grant of ryotwari patta and not on the date of commencement of the Inams Abolition Act. In that view of the matter, in the absence of grant of ryotwari patta to the declarants in pursuance of the Inams Act after following the procedure prescribed thereunder, the petitioner/State cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order of the lower appellate tribunal inasmuch as the computation of the said land, for the first time, is excluded from the declarants holding subject to the requirement of the declarant filing declarations as and when ryotwari pattas are granted. It is also apparent that primary tribunal had misconstrued the decision A.S.D REDDY’s case (1 supra), as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate tribunal and the conclusions reached by the lower appellate tribunal are in conformity with the settled legal position, hence, no interference therewith is warranted by this Court in the revisionsal jurisdiction. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 24, 2011 DSK [1] 1978 ALT 475 [2] AIR 1972 AP 161 [3] 1980 (1) ALT 107