IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.10021 of 2001 Dated 08th September 2009 Between: Gandi Satyanarayana, S/o.Ganga Raju, Hindi, aged about 52 years, Occ:Cultivation, R/o. Gorripudi Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District …Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Authorized officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.10021 of 2001 ORDER: The writ petition assails the order of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada ('LRAT', for brevity) in L.R.A.No.10/1998 dated 21.07.1999. The petitioner, Sri Gandi Satyanarayana – since deceased and represented by his Legal Representatives (LRs) (petitioners 2 to 6), purchased an extent of Acs.2.32 cents in Survey No. 306/4, situated at Gorripudi village of Karapa Mandal in East Godavari District. He statedly purchased the same under registered document dated 28.12.1973 from the legal heirs of one Mr.Gandi Rama Rao. This Mr. Gandi Rama Rao and one Mr. Gandi Anjaneyulu are brothers and they got property in a family partition on 14.12.1957. After coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, ('Land Reforms Act', for brevity), Anjaneyulu filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act. He also declared that Gorripudi land is in his holding. He was declared surplus to an extent of 0.7099 standard holdings. To make a long story short, there were appeals and revisions and ultimately at the stage of surrender proceedings, when land in Survey No.306/4 was sought to be taken possession as being surplus in the holdings of Anjaneyulu, objections were raised by those persons who purchased land. By an order dated 11.07.1995, Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, East Godavari District ('LRT', for brevity) ordered re-conveyance and re-delivery of four items of properties situated at Gorripudi village, including the land comprised in Survey No.306/4 too, to owners. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent herein, referred appeal before LRAT, which, as noticed supra, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of LRT. Second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing writ petition. It is stated that as the original declarant or his LRs failed to propose the surrender of land to Government, LRT initiated action under Section 10(4) of the Land Reforms Act and selected the land under holding of declarant and also accepted the surrender. Survey No.306/4 admeasuring Acs.2.32 cents were also included and was accepted for surrender. The allegation that the petitioners were not impleaded in the appeal is not denied and it is stated that petitioner is not in possession of land and, therefore, he was not impleaded. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner (Sri N.Siva Reddy) and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (AA), it appears to this Court that controversy is in narrow compass. When the LRT, by its order dated 11.07.1995 directed re-delivery and re-conveyance of land, a copy thereof was sent to M/s.Gandi Satyanarayana and two others, for the reason that they were beneficiaries of order. In spite of same, when State preferred an appeal before LRAT, the legal heir of declarant, Gandi Anjaneyulu alone was arrayed as respondent. Even if petitioner or his LRs are not in possession of land, they assailed the order LRAT and LRAT could not have disposed of the appeal without notice to them. It is the case of petitioners that Gandi Satyanarayana purchased the land way back on 25.12.1975. It was also shown in declaration filed by him. This is a strong circumstance, which must have weighed by LRAT while deciding the matter. Without going into these aspects, LRAT observed that land was taken possession, and land was in possession by Government and that surrender proceedings insofar as 0.7099 standard holdings, has become final. It was certainly an adverse finding against petitioners without notice to them and therefore, it is unsustainable. For the reasons as briefed above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned award of the LRAT is set aside. Matter is remitted to appellate authority with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Liberty is given to respondents 1 to 3 to implead petitioners before LRAT. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 08, 2009 Bvv