THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2807 OF 2004 DATED: 17-03-2011 Between: Chigurintala Yadamma @Lakara Yadamma & another. .... PETITIONERS And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Authorized officer (A.O.), Land Reforms, Hyderabad. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 09.12.2003, in L.R.A.No.38 of 1997 on the file of the learned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed and the order, dated 24.11.1997, in C.C.No.E/1766/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Rangareddy District, in respect of surrender proceedings, was confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. 1st petitioner herein is the daughter and the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the deceased-Balaiah, who was the declarant in C.C.No.E/1766/75. The Land Reforms Tribunal by order, dated 31.08.1976, under Section 9 of the Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Act’), found that the declarant was holding 0.0236 S.H. in excess of the ceiling limit as on the notified date. By order, dated 27.04.1977, under Section 10 of the Act, an extent of Ac.1.07 cents of dry land in Sy.No.22 situate at Amberpet Kalan village was suo motu selected by the authorities towards the excess holding. 1st petitioner, who is in possession of the said land, filed petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal on 03.12.1996 offering an alternative land in Sy.No.15 instead of the selected land in Sy.No.22. 1st petitioner also filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal on 28.07.1977 to delete an extent of Ac.1.15 guntas in Sy.No.648, which was covered by registered sale deed and also to delete Ac.1.30 cents of land towards Pot kharab. The Land Reforms Tribunal by order, dated 10.11.1997, held that it has no power to reopen or review the case, which has become final. Aggrieved by the same, 1st petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that after a long lapse of 21 years, the matter, which has attained finality, cannot be reopened. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. It is not disputed that the order, dated 31.08.1976, passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act, holding that the declarant-Ch.Balaiah was in excess of the ceiling limit by 0.0236 S.H, has become final. The alleged alienation of Ac.1.15 guntas in Sy.No.648 by registered sale deed, dated 21.07.1965, and the plea for exclusion of Ac.1.37 guntas towards Pot kharab land cannot be raised now at this stage, long after the orders passed under Section 9 of the Act have become final. In fact, the only ground urged in the present Civil Revision Petition is that before selecting the land of Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.22, which is in possession of the 1st petitioner, notices were not issued to the 1st petitioner as contemplated under Section 10 (4) of the Act and Rule 8(2) of the Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). 5. Section 10(4) of the Act states that if the person on whom a notice is served under sub-section (2), files the statement as required in that Section within the period fixed or does not satisfy the extent of the land which he has to surrender, the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, itself select the extent. 6. Rule 8 (1) of the Rules states that Revenue Divisional Officer may on receipt of a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal under sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 in respect of any land surrendered or deemed to have surrendered by an owner, issued an order in Form IX authorizing any officer not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector to take possession of such land. 7. Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 7 of the Rules states that every order passed by the Tribunal under Section 10, shall be communicated in writing to the declarant and objectors, if any, and a copy thereof shall be marked to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tehsildar. 8. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Rules states that a copy of the order shall be served on the person who has surrendered or is deemed to have surrendered the land and on any other person in possession or occupation of such land. 9. Thus the above provisions contained under the Rules mandate that the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act shall be communicated not only to the declarant but also to the objectors, if any, and a copy of the order should be served on the person who has surrendered or deemed to have been surrendered the land but also on any other person in possession or occupation of such land. It is not disputed that the 1st petitioner is in possession of an extent of Ac.1.07 cents of land in Sy.No.22. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondent, on instructions and on verification of records, would submit that the records do not disclose service of any such notice on the 1st petitioner, who is in possession of the land, and the record clearly shows that the notice was affixed to the notice board of the taluq office. Thus, when there is no service of notice on the 1st petitioner, who is in possession of the land as required under Section 10 of the Act referred to supra, the suo motu selection of the extent of Ac.1.12 guntas in Sy.No.22, cannot be upheld. The impugned order, upholding the action of the authorities, is therefore unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. It is open to the concerned authorities to initiate fresh proceedings regarding the take over of the excess land, after issuing notice on the 1st petitioner and any other person, who is in occupation of the said land. 11. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th March, 2011. Tsy