IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SR4I JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.465 of 2007 Between: Pinninti Seetharamayya (died) and others ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, Srikakulam, Collectorate Complex, Srikakulam town, P.O. and district and others ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision is by the legal representatives of the original declerant and it is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners under impugned L.R.A.No.1 of 2005 dated 20-11-2006. 2. The said appeal was directed against the order of the primary Tribunal refusing to entertain the petitioners application filed under Rule 16 (5) (b) of the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 3. The case of the petitioners is that they had filed an application dated 03-10-2005 under Rule 16 (5)(b) of the Act and Rules referred to above before the primary Tribunal, inter alia, pointing out various clerical and arithmetical mistakes. The said application was entertained and by an order of the primary Tribunal dated 14-10-2005, an endorsement of refusal was given to the petitioners and questioning the same, the petitioners preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court. 4. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal under the impugned order on the ground that the determination proceedings have attained finality by the orders of Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.17035 of 2003 dated 17-12-2004 and also on the ground that the petitioner had not raised the aspects relating to Clerical mistakes or otherwise in any of the earlier proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. 5. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration on behalf of the respondents. 6. It should be noticed from the application of the petitioners filed under Section 16 (5)(b) of the Act and Rules that they have pointed out various errors in the calculation which according to them was required to be corrected by exercising jurisdiction under Rule 16 (5) of the Rules aforesaid. 7. The petitioners contended that the determination of holding of the petitioners is 2.7993 S.H. whereas as per the verification officer the determination of holding was 2.74163/5 S.H. The petitioners, therefore, states that the excess holding of 0.053253.5 is added to the standard holding as determined by the verification officer. 8. It would be noticed that the very same contention was raised by the petitioners earlier in L.R.A.No.2 of 1990. When the same was decided by the appellate Tribunal under judgment dated 27- 01-1997, the said appellate Tribunal considered the very same aspect under point No.2 and ultimately held that “If there are any mistakes, it is open for the petitioners to get the mistake in calculations rectified. Sitting in the appeal this Tribunal cannot go into the question as to the mistakes in calculation and give a direction to the primary Tribunal to correct the mistake. The point is therefore, answered against the appellant.” 9. The petitioners had filed a revision before this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.803 of 1997 which came to be decided by order dated 26-06-2002. This aspect was once again raised by the petitioner before this Court and it was held by this Court as follows: “On the 2nd point, the Tribunal held that the declarant failed to submit any objection to the second verification report and if there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake or error arising in the judgment from any accidental slip or omission, it is always open for the declarant to file the application before the Primary Tribunal and get the mistake in calculation rectified but sitting in appeal, the Tribunal cannot go into the question as to the mistakes in the calculation and give a direction to the Primary Tribunal to correct the mistake. No such application has been filed by the petitioner to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake. If such an application is filed as contemplated under Section 16 (5) (b) of the A.P. Land Reforms Rules 1974 and if there is any mistake, it is always open for the Primary Tribunal to rectify the mistake, and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner to direct the Primary Tribunal to rectify the clerical or arithmetical mistake and such a direction cannot be given in the absence of any application filed to rectify such mistake said to have been committed by the Primary Tribunal or whichever authority committed the mistake and it is always open for the petitioner to file an application for correction of the mistake before the authority concerned only.” 10. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present application for rectification by raising the point referred to above regarding standard holding of other aspects. The primary Tribunal did not however entertain the said application and the appellate Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner never raised the issue regarding clerical mistakes earlier. From the portion mentioned above, it would be evident that the said conclusion of the lower appellate Court at paragraph No.16 of the order is factually incorrect and secondly the proceedings under Rule 16(5) of the Rules would not enable either the petitioner or the Tribunal to re-determine the holding of the declarants and it only enables the correction of the arithmetical or clerical mistakes. On the face of it, therefore, on the first question of standard holding as referred to above, both the Tribunals have not properly appreciated the petitioners’ contention and in spite of the orders of the appellate Tribunal at the earlier point referred to above as confirmed by the Civil Revision Petition as extracted above, remains to be given effect to. In circumstance, I am constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Primary Tribunal with a direction that petitioners’ application under Rule 16 (5) of the Rules referred to above and which is produced along with the revision petition at page Nos.38 to 48 purporting that the said application was filed on 03-10-2005; shall be considered by the Primary Tribunal in accordance with law to the extent of each of the points raised by the petitioner from the standard point of examining as to whether any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the orders of the Tribunal is required to be corrected. 11. It is made clear that under the guise of the said application the petitioner shall not be entitled to re-determination of any question relating to the holding which has already attained finality. 12. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter shall stand remitted to the Primary Tribunal for consideration as aforesaid and the primary Tribunal shall consider and pass appropriate orders preferably before the end of August, 2010. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 01, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.465 of 2007 July 01, 2010