IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 302 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/01/2008 in WP NO : 15024 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.Nagaraja Rao S/o.Padmanabha Rao R/o.D.No.4/132, Panchangam street Penukonda, Ananthapur District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Authorised officer, Land Reforms, Ananthapur Ananthapur District 3 The land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur District Ananthapur 4 The Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Ananthapur District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28-1-2008 passed in W.P. No. 15024 of 2007, this appeal has been filed. Looking to the impugned order whereby the appellant-petitioner has been directed to approach the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, where an appeal had already been filed by the appellant, we need not go into the chequered history of the litigation. However, the relevant facts are referred to herein below. Land belonging to the appellant-petitioner had been declared surplus under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). After the land was declared surplus, it was found that certain land-Tank bed land was not covered under the definition of ‘land’ as per the provisions of Section 2 (j) of the Act. The question then arose was with regard to surrender of some land or paying compensation by the Government in lieu of surrendering the land to the appellant, because possession of the surplus land had already been taken by the Government authorities. Before the learned Single Judge, though the appellant-petitioner had prayed for implementation of order passed in L.R.A.No. 1 of 2006 on 29-6-2006 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur, virtually he had challenged the validity of the order dated 9-5-2007 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda on the ground that by virtue of the said order the Land Reforms Tribunal had not implemented the orders passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, dated 17- 9-2004 in L.R.A.No. 2 of 1999 as well as the order dated 29-6-2006 passed in L.R.A.No. 1 of 2006. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that instead of relegating the appellant—petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, the learned Single Judge ought to have given necessary directions in favour of the appellant-petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant-petitioner to approach the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we have noted the fact that the appellant had not only filed W.P.No. 15024 of 2007 but had also approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by filing L.R.A No. 1 of 2006. After filing the petition, L.R.A.No. 1 of 2006 had been withdrawn. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge ultimately rejected the petition, because, according to the learned Single Judge, proper course for the appellant- petitioner was to get the appeal decided by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-petitioner to approach the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal with a prayer for revival of the appeal. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be incorrect. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has to approach the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and we are sure that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal will permit the appellant to revive the appeal, as the said appeal had not been heard on merits so far. The apprehension of the appellant-petitioner is that even if the appeal is decided in his favour, the final orders passed by the Tribunal on 17-9-2004 in L.R.A.No. 2 of 1999 and the order dated 29-6-2006 passed in L.R.A.No. 1 of 2006 may not be given effect to. We are sure that if the attention of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal is drawn to the aforestated two orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider the same and shall give necessary directions to the Land Reforms Tribunal for taking final decision in the matter. Looking to the fact that the land was declared surplus somewhere in 1979, we are sure that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal shall hear the appeal and shall come to a final conclusion within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We are sure that the learned Advocates appearing before the Tribunal shall also extend their cooperation to the Tribunal so that the matter can come to an end at an early date. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 14th August, 2008. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J GRR