THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3059 AND 3082 OF 2011 Dated:14.12.2011 Between: Merla Surya Prabhakara Rao .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, East Godavari District .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3059 AND 3082 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Land Reforms Act, for brevity). As they arise out of the land reform proceedings in the declaration filed by the petitioner, it is expedient to dispose of them by a common order. The brief background of the case is as follows. The petitioner herein filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act being L.S.C.No.994/RMM/75 declaring his agricultural holding. The Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), Rajahmundry passed orders on 01.12.2002 determining the petitioner to be in excess holding to the extent of 0.6231 S.H. As a consequent thereto, the LRT issued notice under Section 10(4) of the Land Reforms Act, provisionally selecting the lands comprised in Sy.Nos.13 (Acs.2.15 ½ cents) 8/3 (Ac.0.02 cents) of Kapavaram Village, Sy.No.106/2 (Ac.1.50 cents) of Venuturu Village and Sy.Nos.143/1 (Acs.2.91 cents), 144/8 (Ac.0.74 cents) and 171/1 (Ac.1.04 cents) of Siripuram Village. Aggrieved by the said notice/order dated 01.12.2002 selecting the lands for surrendering to the Government, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 20 of the Land Reforms Act. In the meanwhile, one Smt.Merla Rama Surya Bhaskaram filed I.A.No.5 of 2001 before the LRT claiming to be the divorced wife of the declarant. She alleged that the land admeasuring Acs.0.74 cents in Sy.No.106/2 and Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.111/4 situated at Venuturu Village was purchased by her; the land does not belong to her former husband and that the same may be excluded from the surrender proceedings. The LRT passed orders on 19.10.2002 directing exclusion of two survey numbers from the holding of the declarant and re-determined the surplus holding at 1.6231 S.H. against the entitlement of 1.0000 S.H. as on the notified date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/declarant filed L.R.A.No.23 of 2002. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT)-cum-the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada considered the two appeals separately. On 29.09.2009, he passed two separate orders dismissing both the appeals. Aggrieved by L.R.A.No.23 of 2002, the declarant filed C.R.P.No.3059 of 2011 and C.R.P.No.3082 of 2011 is filed against L.R.A.No.1 of 2003. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land covered by Sy.No.102/2 of Venuturu and Sy.Nos.13 and 8/3 of Kapavaram Villages are inam lands and unless and until a ryotwari patta is granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 the said lands cannot be treated as included in the holdings of the petitioner. He would also submit that these lands belong to the ex-wife of the declarant. The LRAT after verifying the records found that the land admeasuring Acs.8.29 cents in Sy.No.13/1 of Venuturu was shown to be in the holding of the petitioner and therefore his plea that an extent of Ac.0.27 cents out of the said land belonging to Smt.Merla Suryanarayana cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by the LRAT, the holdings have to be determined with reference to the notified date and subsequent changes in the revenue records would not in any manner change the situation. In so far as the plea of the petitioner that the inam land cannot be included in the holding is concerned that there were interpolations in Ex.A1 and it cannot be conclusively held that the land in Sy.No.106/2 of Venuturu and Sy.No.16/3 of Koppavaram Village were inam lands. Further, there is no denial that when the declaration was filed by the petitioner, he himself had shown, these lands in his holding. He cannot be permitted to take a different view at the stage of surrender proceedings. Even otherwise, as held by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Nellore Bujjanna v Tahsildar, Rapur Taluk, Rapur[1], the abolition of imams does not have the effect of putting an end to the Inams tenure. Therefore, the land has to be considered to be in the holding of the Inamdar. The grant of patta at a subsequent date by converting the inam land into ryotwari has no effect in so far as the holding of the land for the purpose of the Land Reforms Act. After giving due consideration to the grounds in these Civil Revision Petitions, this Court is convinced that there is no merit in these two revisions. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 14.12.2011 KH [1] 1980 (1) An.W.R. 235