IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25813 of 2008 Between: P. Narsimha Reddy S/o. Krishna Reddy R/o. H.No. 3-2-17/2, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Reforms Tribunal Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in pass in the Impugned Order in Case No.E/704/75 dated 31-10-2008 as arbitrary, contrary to law, unjust, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to Rule 16(5) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974, in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the Petitioner's case on merits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25813 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner filed declaration under Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity) declaring land held by him and his wife Smt.P.Sukanya. It appears he declared that land to an extent of Ac.0.10 gts comprised in survey Nos.558, 665, 785 and 786 situated at Kistapur, Medchal Village, was acquired by Zilla Parishad for laying road and that land to an extent of Acs.2.12 gts was pot-kharab. However, verification officer submitted report stating that all these are agricultural lands. Ignoring objections filed by petitioner, primary Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT) computed petitioner’s holding including above two extents. Petitioner was ultimately declared to be excess holder to an extent of 0.8549 standard holding (SH) and he was asked to surrender the same. He preferred an appeal before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT). The same was rejected on 21.04.1977. Petitioner filed revision petition before this Court which was allowed and the matter was remitted to LRT. After such remand LRT by order dated 31.07.1986 again recomputed holding of petitioner in excess of 0.7734 SH. In 2005, LRT directed Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal, to take possession of petitioner’s land of Acs.32.34. Therefore, he filed an application under Rule 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (the Rules, for brevity) before LRT to rectify omission/mistake/error insofar land covered by Zilla Parishad road and land classified as pot-kharab. After necessary consideration, LRT (second respondent) passed orders on 31.10.2008 rejecting the application on the ground that it has no such power to rectify the mistakes. This is assailed in instant writ petition. At the stage of admission itself the matter is heard finally. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-Telangana Area) has made submissions based on the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in V.Sudhakar Rao v State of A.P.[1] and Full Bench of this Court in Digambar Rao v Govt. of A.P.[2], and submits that LRT has jurisdiction to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes at any point of time and therefore, impugned order of second respondent rejecting such application is erroneous. Second respondent passed orders stating that primary tribunals do not have power to reopen the case under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules. This is certainly erroneous. The availability of power in statutory rules is altogether different from not applying said statutory provision conferring power. As held by this Court in two decisions referred to hereinabove, LRT is conferred with power to correct arithmetical errors or accidental omissions. This is notwithstanding a situation where the declaration filed by a person under Section 8 of the Act has been finally determined. Therefore, impugned order suffers from improper exercise of jurisdiction and the same liable to be set aside. Accordingly impugned order dated 31.10.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to second respondent to dispose of the same on merits in keeping in view two decisions cited hereinabove. This exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16th December, 2008 GHN To 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Reforms Tribunal Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 2CCs to GP for Revenue 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} [1] 2001(4) ALT 436 [2] 2001(6) ALT 226 (F.B.)