HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos. 5118, 5119, and 5122 of 2007 DT.26-11-2010 CRP No.5118/2007: Dara Tirupathi Rao …Petitioner V. 1. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Nuzvid, Krishna District and others ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos. 5118, 5119, and 5122 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties in all the revision petitions are almost one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in all the three revision petitions is a third party. The petitioner questioning the proceedings issued in CC No.1293, 1294, 1297/NZD/75 by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nuzvid, filed objections before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nuzvid, taking advantage of the observation made in Rev.CRPMP No.1113/2006 in CRP No.4/1995, which was filed to review the orders passed in CRP No.4/1995 dt. 1-8-2003, which was disposed of observing that it is always open for the petitioner to raise any objections before the Tribunal, which shall consider and dispose of on merits in accordance with law. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner under Sec.139 CPC, it was stated that the petitioner in all the three revision petitions in the year 1961 orally purchased Ac.5-78 cents of dry land covered by R.S.No.198/1 and Ac.1-22 of dry land covered by R.SNo.198/2 of Gullapudi village from Madala Anjaneyulu, declarant in above CCs, and since then he has been in possession of the same and perfected title to the property by 1974 by way of adverse possession as oral sale is void and title of the original owner was extinguished even by 1- 1-1975 ie., notified date. For the said reason only, the declarant has not shown the said property, which is in possession of the petitioner, in the declaration, therefore the original owner was found to be excess of the ceiling limit and asked to surrender the land in 1985 and proposed to surrender the land in the possession of the petitioner to the Government towards surplus land. In the year 1993, when the declarant tried to surrender the land, which is in his (petitioner) possession, he filed objections before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bandar. The Tribunal by its order dt. 20-5-1993 refused to accept the said land for surrender. Against the said order, the declarant preferred LRA No.271/1994 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari District, Eluru. The appellate tribunal dismissed the said appeal by order dt.1-12-1994. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the legal representatives of the declarant preferred CRP No.4/1995 before this court. The said revision was allowed by this Court by order dt. 1-8-2003. The petitioner along with third parties filed review CRPMP No.1113/2006 in CRP No.4/1995 and Review CRPMP No.9192/2005 in CRP No.5/1995 to review the order dt. 1-8-2003, which were disposed of, granting liberty to file objections. Hence, objections. In spite of filing objections, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nuzvid, has not disposed of the objections. Therefore, the present revisions are filed. From the averments as referred to above, it is clear that the petitioner purchased the property under oral sale in the year 1961 from the declarant, and when the sale has become void has not been stated. If at all the plea of the petitioner is accepted sale will become void as no sale deed can be executed in their favour after coming into force of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Land Reforms Act”). The petitioner cannot obtain any decree or declaration or any sale deed in view of the bar contained under sub-section (2) of Sec.7 after 2nd May, 1972 before the notified date in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972. Once the petitioner cannot obtain any declaration or seek specific performance after the said date in view of bar contained under Sec. 17 of the Land Reforms Act, the petitioner cannot claim any title by way of adverse possession of the said property. In view of the same, this court does not find any ground to entertain these revision petitions. The Civil revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:26-11-2010 kmr