HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5732 OF 2009 DATE:11-02-2010 BETWEEN: Dasari Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Authorised Officer Land Reforms, Kakinada. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5732 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the orders of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge at Kakinada, dated 9.3.2009 in dismissing L.R.A.No.18 of 2002. This is a classic example how the proceedings under the Act are not being allowed to finalise even after 30 years on one pretext or the other and in the process the purpose for which the Act is enacted is sought to be defeated. The petitioner-declarant filed declaration under the Act and the same was determined on 16.12.1999 declaring the family unit of the petitioner holding 15.6861 standard holdings in excess to the ceiling area as on the notified date. Aggrieved thereby, he filed L.R.A.No.1 of 1990 and the same was allowed by the appellate Tribunal remanding the matter to the lower Tribunal for fresh enquiry and to take up computation of the land after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides. On such remand, evidence was let in by the parties and the lower Tribunal again determined the family unit of the petitioner as 9.6871 standard holdings as against the entitlement of 1.0000 standard holdings and re-determined that the family unit of the petitioner holds 8.6871 standard holdings in excess to the ceiling area. Aggrieved by that, again the petitioner filed L.R.A.No.134 of 1995 before the appellate Tribunal questioning the computation and re-determination of the land held by him. The said L.R.A. was allowed in part by order, dated 19.10.1996, which reads thus: “It is clear that the lands covered under imams cannot be included in the holdings of the appellant till the enquiry is conducted with regard to tenancy rights under the said Act. Here in this case, there is no evidence to show that there is a tenant on the lands other than the declarant and the rights of the parties have to be decided in between them. Admittedly, he is in the possession of the property and no other person is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the above said ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case and the appellant is not entitled for exclusion of the said land from his holdings and the same is rejected.” Aggrieved by the above said orders, petitioner filed a revision in C.R.P.No.1994 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 20.4.2001. On such dismissal, the lower Tribunal passed an order on 6.6.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.26 of 2002 stating that there are several clerical mistakes in computation and the same is not in accordance with the order of the appellate Tribunal passed in L.R.A.No.134 of 1995. The lower Tribunal dismissed the said I.A. by order, dated 21.9.2002 holding that the orders passed on 6.6.2002 do not require any modification and directed the petitioner to submit a statement showing the lands proposed to surrender to an extent equivalent to 8.1688 standard holdings within 15 days from the date of the orders. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the impugned appeal i.e. L.R.A.No.18 of 2002 on two grounds, firstly, the lower Tribunal did not follow the directions issued by the appellate Tribunal in its order, dated 19.10.1996 in L.R.A.No.134 of 1995 whereunder the petitioner was granted reliefs relating to computation and categorization of lands situated in the villages, Gokavaram, Krishnunipalem, Bolleddupalem and Kothapalli. Secondly, the lower Tribunal Computed the inam lands in the holding of petitioner though no enquiry as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 37/56 was conducted and the patta was granted to the petitioner till now and till the patta is granted by a competent authority under the said Act, the lands cannot be computed in the holdings of the petitioner. The appellate Tribunal in its earlier order passed in L.R.A.No.134 of 1995, dated 19.10.1996 held as under: “As per the verification report in respect of the lands in Sy.No.153, 242 of Gokavaram Village, the crop test is satisfied to treat them as single crop wet lands. Similarly, in Sy.No.149 of Krishnunipalem, it is treated as single crop wet land for the entire extent of Ac.6.33 cents. The land in Sy.No.57/2 of Bolleddupalem village is treated as single crop wet land. It is further held by this Tribunal that the land in Sy.No.728 of Kothapalli village, has not contained any non-agricultural portions.” By the impugned order, the appellate Tribunal taking into consideration of its earlier order as extracted above and after considering the each of the grounds raised in the appeal, held that the lower Tribunal strictly followed the directions issued in L.R.A.No.134 of 1995, dated 19.10.1996. It was further held that as against its findings in L.R.A.No.134 of 1995, since the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, the very same findings in that L.R.A. would bind on the appellate Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the appeal. As seen from the impugned order, the lower appellate Tribunal gave cogent reasons for each of the contentions urged in the grounds of appeal and the said findings are in tune with the remand order passed in L.R.A.No.134 of 1995 and thus, rightly came to the conclusion that filing of the impugned appeal is only to drag on the proceedings in one way or the other and to see that the excess land cannot be taken possession even after finalization of the proceedings under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality committed by the lower appellate Tribunal in disallowing the claim on both the grounds as referred to above. In view of the same, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 Tsr.