IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5553 OF 2009 Between: Gundraju Narasimha Murthy …Petitioner A n d Mahadasu Suryanarayana and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5553 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.07.2009 in A.T.A.No.18 of 2005, on the file of the III-Additional District Judge, Kakinada, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed, setting aside the decree and order dated 30.08.2005 in A.T.C.No.1 of 1996, on the file of the Special Officer for Tenancy Cases-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, whereunder the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 13 and 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (for short ‘the Act’), seeking eviction of the respondents from the scheduled land, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. According to the petitioner, he leased out the schedule land to the respondents in 1992 under an oral lease on a yearly rent of Rs.5,000/- per year, payable by 31st of March every year; that the respondents dug pits over the land for preparing bricks and thereby rendered the land unfit for cultivation and that the respondents have removed more than fifty thousand bricks from the schedule land and one lakh bricks are yet to be removed. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents committed default in payment of the yearly rent payable in March, 1994 and 1995. 4. The respondents filed a counter denying the lease and contending that the petitioner herein filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapuram under Section 8 of the Act and showed the land in possession of the respondents therein and as he was found to be in possession of excess extent, he surrendered the schedule land towards surplus extent and the government accepted the surrender under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act. The Government also made preparations for issuing pattas to third parties. The respondents and others who are in possession of the said land resisted the attempts of the Government to take possession and they are entitled for patta under Rule 10 of the A.P. Land Reforms Rules since they are landless poor people. The respondents further alleged that the petitioner started the eviction proceedings only to extract money from the respondents. 5. During enquiry before the Special Officer, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. The Special Officer, by order dated 30.08.2005, allowed the application, directing the respondents to vacate the schedule land on the ground that the petitioner established the landlord and tenant relationship and also on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1994. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred an appeal in A.T.A.No.18 of 2005. The learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order passed by the learned Special Officer. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner submitted a declaration before the Land Ceiling Tribunal wherein the schedule land was also declared and the petitioner was held to be holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has shown the schedule land as surplus and offered to surrender the same and the surrender of the schedule land was also accepted by the Tribunal. Ex.B-2 letter addressed by the petitioner to the Additional RDO-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal shows the lands retained by him and further shows that the schedule land in Sy.No.169 was surrendered to the Government. Ex.B-3 is the certificate in Form No. X handing over possession of the land by the petitioner to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sankhavaram on 04.03.1989 which shows that the schedule land was surrendered by the petitioner to the Government. Thereafter, public notice in Form No.VIII was issued under Ex.B-4 regarding the surrender of land by the petitioner. Ex.B-1 to B-5 clearly establish the fact that the petitioner surrendered possession of the schedule land under the Land Ceiling Act to the Government and the same is accepted by the Government. The schedule land, therefore, got vested with the Government and the petitioner can no longer have any rights therein. Suppressing the said facts, the petitioner filed A.T.C.No.1 of 1996 as if he continued to be the landlord and the respondents committed default in payment of rent and also committed acts of waste. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the petitioner cannot maintain the petition for eviction against the respondents as he has already surrendered the land to the Government. The impugned order, allowing the appeal and consequently dismissing A.T.C.No.1 of 1996 filed by the petitioner, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th August, 2011 Lrkm