IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6257 OF 2003 BETWEEN Puttagunta Venkatasubba Rao. …PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. represented by the A.O., Land Reforms Tribunal, Guntur and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. M.S.R. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. J. SESHAGIRI RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari, dismissing LRA.No.24 of 2002 by judgment dated 08.10.2003 filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. Petitioner herein was not a declarant but claims to be a cultivating tenant. The respondents 2 and 3 are the legal representatives of the original declarant, who filed declaration and the determination reached finality by order of this Court in CRP.No.1279 of 1996 dated 04.04.2000. The respondents 2 and 3 filed objections and the matter was finalized by order dated 28.10.2002 in CC.No.1491/RAP/75 of the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum- Special Collector, Tenali, determining certain excess lands and surrender proposals received from the Mandal Revenue Officers, Repalle and Nagaram for the above lands were accepted on account of the LRs of the declarant not availing the opportunity to surrender the excess land. 3. Petitioner, who claims to be a cultivating tenant of the land, which is the subject matter of LCC, filed the present appeal being LRA.No.24 of 2002 against the order rejecting the objection petition of the LRs of the original declarant by the land reforms tribunal. It was noticed by the appellate tribunal that the petitioner had not produced any evidence in support of his claim being in possession as a tenant or a mere possessor nor survey numbers were mentioned and in the absence of the same, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision petition, even after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to see any legal right established by the petitioner in his favour warranting interference with the impugned order apart from the lack of particulars and evidence as pointed out by the lower appellate tribunal. When the declaration has become final and surrender stage also having reached, the objections by the petitioner/third party without any substance were rightly rejected by the appellate tribunal. The civil revision petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 19, 2011 DSK