THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5076 OF 2005 O R D E R: The re vision petitioner is the appellant in Land Reforms Appeal No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal, where-under the claim of the revision petitioner was dismissed confirming the order of the lower tribunal. An extent of Acs.3.20 Gts., of land in Sy.No.509 was said to belong to Ch.Raghava Reddy, who is the brother of the revision petitioner and also a declarant. The Land Ceiling Tribunal made an enquiry and passed an order holding Raghava Reddy has got excess land and the tribunal intended to take possession of the above said land. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the extent of Acs.3.20 Gts., of land in Sy.No.509 was exchanged with his brother for the land in Sy.No.510 admeasuring Acs.2.00 Gts., on 16.05.1971 and therefore, Raghava Reddy is not the holder of the said land and it cannot be taken possession. 2. Rejecting the objections of the revision petitioner, the lower appellate Court dismissed the same. Evidently, the revision petitioner is claiming the rights in the schedule property by virtue of an un- registered deed of exchange dated 16.07.1971. In fact during the land reforms proceedings pending before the tribunal on the declaration of Raghava Reddy there seems to be no claim made either by Raghava Reddy or by the petitioner herein for the alleged exchange of the land. The rights of the revision petitioner can only be considered if there is a valid exchange of rights. Evidently, the document dated 16.07.1971 relied on by the revision petitioner is an unregistered exchange deed and on the basis of which when the orders with regard to the declarations filed by the declarant Raghava Reddy have become final, it is not open to challenge again. Therefore, the revision petitioner has no rights in the schedule property and the order passed by the lower appellate Court or the tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and does not call for any interference by this Court. 3. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 21-06-2011. INL