IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6360 of 2009 BETWEEN The State of A.P. rep. by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kakinada. ... PETITIONER AND Putchakayala Radhakrishna Chowdary and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent: MR. ERANKI PHANI KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the State aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada in L.R.A.No.21 of 2002 dated 27.03.2008 allowing the appeal of the declarants whereby certain extents of lands computed in their holding were directed to be excluded. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents, who are legal representatives of the declarant. 3. The order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in L.C.C.No.751/ALR/75 dated 28.09.2002 states that the determination proceedings initiated by the tribunal in its order dated 17.02.1999 was questioned in the appeal as well as in the revision by the declarant. The revision petition being CRP.No.2514 of 1994 was dismissed by this Court on 19.04.1997. Thereafter, the proceedings were taken by the tribunal for selection of the surplus land suo motu, as there was no response to the notices given to the declarant to surrender excess land. At that stage, the respondents herein sought exclusion of certain lands from the holding on the ground that there is a tank and cattle shed and the said land is non-agricultural land, not liable to be computed in the holding. The tribunal rejected the said contention against which the aforesaid appeal was filed before the lower appellate tribunal and the same was allowed under the impugned order. 4. The fact that determination proceedings attained finality by dismissal of CRP.No.2514 of 1994 dated 19.04.1997 cannot be disputed. Once determination proceedings have attained finality at the surrender stage, it is not open for the respondents to seek exclusion of lands computed in the holding of the declarant. The lower appellate tribunal, therefore, is ex facie in error in permitting such exclusion, as it would amount to destroying the finality attached to the determination proceedings. The said aspect is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU v. STATE OF A.P.[1]. The impugned order of the lower appellate tribunal, therefore, is not sustainable on the aforesaid ground itself irrespective of the merits of the contentions of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILINGS, HYDERABAD v. P.S. RAO[2], which arose under the Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation) Act, 1976. Learned counsel submits that the said decision holds that excess land even if determined, no vesting takes place till the notification under Section 10(5) of the Act is issued and applying the said analogy, the learned counsel submits that even under the Land Reforms Act there is no finality to the determination till the vesting takes place. 6. I am afraid, the said analogy is neither applicable nor is even otherwise sustainable, as even under the Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation) Act, merely because vesting has not taken place, the determination, which has attained finality cannot be reopened. The scheme under that Act as well as the present Act does not keep the determination proceedings open for repeated reviews, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. The impugned order, therefore, being unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in KONDA VENUGOPALA RAJU’s case (1 supra), the same is liable to be set aside and the revision, accordingly, deserves to be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents made another submission that the original declarant died on 04.01.2001 and as such, the primary tribunal could not have served any notice on him requiring him to surrender excess land and consequently, the proceedings taken by the primary tribunal for selecting the excess land suo motu is not sustainable. 8. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that when the tribunal suo motu selected certain lands, it had issued notice dated 01.07.2002 calling for objections, if any. At that stage, the respondents, who claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased declarant, approached the tribunal for exclusion of land, which has resulted in the present proceedings. If the respondents wish to raise objections to the selection of lands, as made suo motu, as per notice dated 01.07.2002 by the primary tribunal, it is open for them to file their objections to the said notice and thereafter, the tribunal shall consider the same, pass appropriate orders and proceed further in the matter. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 11, 2011 DSK [1] (1997) 6 SCC 277 [2] AIR 2000 SC 843