THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2137 OF 2007 Dated:08.07.2010 Between: Madina Gopalakrishna .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by the District Collector, Srikakulam and others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Srikakulam, in L.R.A.No.5 of 2002 dated 30.05.2006 to the extent of refusing to reclassify any of the lands in question. The factual background of the revision is that the Primary Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, passed an order on 26.11.2002 in L.C.C. No.161/TKL/75 on the objection raised by the revision petitioner herein about the erroneous calculation of the surplus land and also about the mistaken classification of the lands treating ‘dry lands’ as ‘wet lands’. The Primary Tribunal noticed two clerical mistakes, which were directed to be corrected in the earlier order dated 10.08.2002 but noted that no objections were received earlier from the declarant or her successor against the lands proposed to be surrendered and consequently, the Primary Tribunal felt that it cannot reopen its order issued under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1 of 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). Against the said order arose L.R.A.No.5 of 2002 in which the impugned order was passed firstly noting that the proceedings reached finality and orders under Section 10(3) of the Act were passed pursuant to which lands were surrendered by the declarant and the revision petitioner also. Following the decision reported in Laxman Reddy and others V The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Authorised Officer (L.R.), Medak at Sanga Reddy[1], wherein it was held that under the guise of arithmetical mistake, the declarant cannot relegate back and ask for reclassification of lands, when the determination of the holding of the land had become final, the appellate Tribunal refused to consider any reclassification, in the absence of any such claim by the declarant or the revision petitioner from 1975 till the present objection was raised. The impugned order is under challenge by the successor of the declarant herein on the ground that both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise their jurisdiction even though the surrender proceedings were not completed and the proceedings could not have been considered to have been finalized. The fact that the original declarant was an aged, illiterate widow, ignorant of the classification of the lands had to be considered and the order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing reclassification has to be set aside. Heard Sri K.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the contesting respondents. The point for consideration is whether reclassification of the lands, as desired by the revision petitioner, is permissible at the stage at which such a claim is sought to be made? POINT:- Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has reinforced the legal basis for the impugned order by referring to the declaration of law by the Apex Court in Konda Venugopala Raju V State of Andhra Pradesh [2], wherein the Apex Court held that once the proceedings have become final and the land holding has been declared to be in excess of the ceiling area, the correctness of the same cannot be questioned once over. The Apex Court observed that the surrender proceedings are in the nature of execution of the surplus land declared by the authorities and there is no further provision to reopen the order passed under Section 9 of the Act except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The new plea set up by the declarant therein was held to be incapable of being characterized as a clerical or arithmetical mistake and it is seen from the facts of the case before the Apex Court that the prayer therein was also to have the lands, stated as agricultural lands earlier, treated as non-agricultural lands, which was held to be impermissible. While, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order had followed a binding precedent to the same effect from this Court, the order, therefore, cannot be considered to be susceptible to interference by this Court in the restricted revisional jurisdiction on the admitted facts. The illiteracy or old age of the original declarant could not have provided any justification for ignoring specific provisions of law more so, when it is not claimed that the declarant was not acting under competent legal advice in pursuing the declaration or the consequential proceedings earlier. The revision has to accordingly fail. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 08.07.2010 KH [1] 1992 (2) A.P.L.J. (H.C.) [2] (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 277