THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30820 of 2010 Date: 8.12.2010 Between: S.Rama Lakshumma ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30820 of 2010 Order: The petitioner, who was granted a DKT patta for Acs.0.49cents of land, which was declared to be a surplus land under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,1973 (for short ‘the Act’) of the predecessors in title of respondent nos. 5 to 9, filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the attempt on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in seeking to dispossess her from the said land. The situation as presented by the petitioner in her affidavit leading to the threat of her dispossession has emerged in view of the fact that the appellate Tribunal under Act, has reversed the order of the Primary Tribunal in declaring the declarant of the land in question as holding surplus land. As a result of the judgment of the appellate Tribunal, the land including the one which is covered by the DKT patta granted in favour of the petitioner, was treated as belonging to the declarant. The grievance of the petitioner is that the patta granted as far back as the year 1997 cannot be nullified at this length of time and the petitioner cannot be dispossessed. In my opinion, inevitable legal consequence of allowing of appeal by the appellate Tribunal is reversion of the land back either to the declarant or his legal heirs. Therefore, no exception can be taken if the respondents seek to retrieve the land from the possession of the persons like the petitioner for handing over of the same to the declarant or his legal representatives. However, before doing that the respondents shall follow due process of law. If the DKT patta has not been cancelled so far, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed without cancellation of the patta. The respondents shall also consider the plea raised by the petitioner in this writ petition that she has developed the land in good faith without anticipating the future event of the appellate Tribunal holding the declarant as owning the land within the ceiling limits. They shall consider the plight of the petitioner afresh and entertain her claim for assignment of alternative land in the light of the un-contemplated events that have taken place. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.39212 of 2 0 1 0 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 8th December, 2010 pnb