HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4023 of 2007 Date: 23-9-2011 Between S.Dattatreya Rao (Died) per L.Rs., S.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao … Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through A.O., Land Reforms, Khammam and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4023 of 2007 Order: Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 25-6-2007, passed in L.R.A.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal, Warangal district, the present civil revision petition is filed. 2. The deceased 1st petitioner herein is the declarant before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, and he was the original petitioner in L.R.A.No.1 of 2002. After his death, the 2nd petitioner was brought on record as his sole legal representative as per the orders of this Court dated 25-02-2011 in C.M.P.No.1096 of 2011. The Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal, passed the impugned judgment observing that he did not find any error committed by the Revenue authorities in selecting the land from out of the lands mentioned by the deceased original petitioner in his additional declaration suo motu and accordingly, upheld the orders of the Revenue authorities while dismissing the appeal filed by him. Being aggrieved, the present civil revision petition is filed by the original petitioner. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the deceased original petitioner filed a declaration under the provisions of the Land Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam. After due enquiry, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, passed orders dated 06-6-1981 holding that the declarant (deceased original petitioner) is a surplus land holder to an extent of 0.6162 SH and on receipt of notice in Form No.VI, the declarant filed a surrender statement dated 30-6-1981 proposing to surrender an extent of Ac.27- 16 gts., of land situated in Jeedlacheruvu village in Survey Nos.602, 603, 604, 605, 354, 358 and 359 and at the same time, he filed L.R.A.No.12 of 1983 questioning the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, dated 06-6-1981 and the same was dismissed by the appellate tribunal. Thereafter, he filed C.R.P.No.2838 of 1983 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18-02-1987, which ended in dismissal. On 30-6-1981, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, suo motu selected some other lands belonging to the declarant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 25-11-1995, the deceased original petitioner preferred L.R.A.No.158 of 1996 before the appellate tribunal and the same was allowed on 20-4-1996, setting aside the order dated 25-11-1995 in C.C.No.297/KMM/75 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, directing the lower tribunal to issue Form No.VIII publication for the lands surrendered by the deceased original petitioner as per his surrender statement dated 30-6-1981. Accordingly, Form No.VIII was published by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam. Thereafter, the original petitioner (deceased) filed supplementary surrender statement, when the lands already surrendered by him were not sufficient. In the said surrender statement, he proposed to surrender lands in Survey Nos.341, 342, 343, 346 and 611 of Jeedlacheruvu village in addition to the lands which he already proposed to surrender under the surrender statement dated 30-6-1981. On the publication of Form No.VIII, some third parties filed objection petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, contending that they had purchased some of the lands that were proposed to be taken over by the Government and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands since long time prior to coming into force the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdingss) Act, 1973, and the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal L.R.A.No.53 of 1996 filed by the third parties by order dated 21-6-1997. Thereafter, the third parties filed C.R.P.No.4489 of 1997 before this Court, which resulted in dismissal on 13-02-2001. After dismissal of the C.R.P., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kusumanchi Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein, was directed by the lower tribunal to take steps for assignment of the said lands. Thereafter, the original petitioner has filed an objection petition for taking over the possession of the above lands, contending that the lower tribunal has to implement the order dated 25-11-1995 passed by the appellate tribunal in L.R.A.No.158 of 1995 and further contended that the Land Reforms Tribunal has no right to reject the above surrender made by the petitioner on the ground that the lands were in possession of the declarant and to accept the surrender of the lands as per the surrender statement dated 30-6-1981 submitted by the petitioner. The above objections filed by the original petitioner were not accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, holding that the declarant himself has admitted before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and before this Court in C.R.P.No.4489 of 1997 that he already sold the lands to third parties under an agreement of sale, the enquiry made by the Tahsildar found that the lands offered in the surrender statement are not in possession of the declarant, and accordingly passed the order dated 13-5-2002 in C.C.No.297/KMM/75. 4. The Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal, having heard the matter L.R.A.No.1 of 2002, dismissed the appeal observing that he did not find any error committed by the lower tribunal in passing the impugned judgment. 5. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned judgment of the appellate tribunal is sustainable ? 6. Point:- During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly conceded that the 2nd petitioner herein is ready to surrender the lands under the first surrender statement and also undertakes to surrender the lands under the second surrender statement, made by the deceased original petitioner, if he is found to surrender the excess land i.e., if the lands surrendered in the first surrender statement is not sufficient to meet the declaration. 7. Though the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 sought time to verify the same from the concerned Revenue officials, he did not produce any Revenue records. 8. As seen from the copy of the judgment dated 20-4-1996 in L.R.A.No.158 of 1995 passed by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, it was observed therein that the Deputy Tahsildar proposed some other lands belonging to the declarant (deceased original petitioner) and recommended the Land Reforms Tribunal to take possession of the said lands on the basis of which, the Land Reforms Tribunal got published Form No.VIII and subsequently passed the order. It was also observed that once those lands were included in the holding of the declarant (deceased original petitioner), he is at liberty to surrender the same lands towards surplus extent of land held by him and it is not within the powers of the lower tribunal to reject the said surrender on the ground that the lands were not in possession of the declarant and accordingly, directed the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, to issue Form No.VIII for the lands surrendered by the declarant in his surrender statement dated 30-6- 1981. 9. According to the observations made by the appellate tribunal in the impugned judgment, at the result portion, the matter was directed to be proceeded with. After considering the objections of the original petitioner, orders were passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, rejecting the contentions of the original petitioner. 10. It was urged by the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that though the appeal filed by third parties as well as the C.R.P., filed by them were dismissed, it cannot be said that the above lands which are in possession of the third parties under agreement of sale executed by the appellants are free from encumbrances. 11. Admittedly, the original petitioner has included the lands, which were not in his possession in his surrender statement dated 30- 6-1981. The appellate tribunal also noted in the impugned judgment that the conduct of the declarant is unfair and improper. As the Revenue authorities found that there is unfairness and impropriety on the part of the original petitioner, they have selected the lands from out of the lands mentioned by him in the additional declaration suo motu. Therefore, the finding arrived at in the impugned judgment by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal, is sustainable. 12. However, in view of the willingness expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner herein is ready to surrender the lands under the first surrender statement and also undertakes to surrender the lands under the second surrender statement, made by the deceased original petitioner, if he is found to surrender the excess land i.e., if the lands surrendered in the first surrender statement is not sufficient to meet the declaration, the Government can take the same into consideration and if the said offer is feasible, they may proceed accordingly in view of the voluntary surrender made by the 2nd petitioner herein. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 23rd September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4023 of 2007 23rd September, 2011. (Ak)