WP/20795/2008 of T.Chakravarthy Vs State of AP., rep.by Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 30 December 2009

COMMON ORDER:

In these writ petitions, common questions of law andfact arise for consideration. Therefore, they are being disposed of bythis common order. However, the facts as narrated in W.P. No. 11232of 2008 are noted down for the purpose of resolving the issues.

4[th] petitioner is a Partnership Firm constituted underthe Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the 5[th] petitioner is a Company,incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners 1 and 2 arethe partners of 5[th] petitioner-Company, whereas 3[rd] petitioner is theManaging Partner of 4[th] petitioner-Firm. They have questioned thenotice in Form No.IX and the Order of even date 19-2-2008 in C.C.No.Ch/2531/75 passed by 2[nd] respondent as without jurisdiction,arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling onAgricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rulesframed thereunder and also violative of principles of natural justice,apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of theConstitution of India; consequently seeking a direction to respondents2 to 4 to forbear from interfering with the rights of the petitioners inrespect of the land admeasuring Ac.32-08 guntas in S.Nos. 19/20,19/22, 19/23, 19/25, 19/26 and 19/48 of Ammapally village,Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District in any manner whatsoever.

It is the case of the petitioners that one VenkatramiReddy was the original owner of huge extents of lands in Ammapallyvillage, Chevella Taluq of Rangareddy District. In the year 1963, in anoral partition effected among the daughters of Venkatrami Reddy,namely, Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai @ Radha Laxmi Bai, VijithaBhoopal and Vidyullatha Devi, the subject lands measuring Ac.32-08

guntas in 19/20, 19/22, 19/23/2, 19/25/2, 19/26/2 and 19/48/2 ofAmmapally village, Chevella Taluq, Rangareddy District fell to theshare of Smt. Vijitha Bhoopal. In the year 1966, Vijitha Bhoopaldelivered physical possession of the above lands to Umareddy, on anagreement of sale of the said property. On 17.11.1969, the subject landwas sold to Umareddy by receiving substantial part of considerationunder the agreements and Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai and Smt.Vidyullatha Devi have joined as co-executants. On 15.6.1978, theLand Reforms Tribunal in C.C. No.CH/2421/75, in thedeclaration filed by the husband of Umareddy, namely, BodaVenkatram Reddy, has computed the lands purchased by Umareddy,to their holdings. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by an orderdated 27.2.1979 in C.C. 1085, 1090, 1088/NZB/75, while deleting thesubject lands from the holding of Vijitha Bhoopal, has determined thestandard holding as on 1.1.1975. On 19.1.1983 Smt. Umareddyobtained a registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement dated17.11.1969 from Vijitha Bhoopal, to which Radha Lakshmi Bai gaveher consent in the execution of agreement. The declaration in C.C.No.CL/2531/75 of Smt. Radha Lakshmi Bai @ Rani Radha Laxmi wasdetermined, declaring her standard holding as 16.9322, on 28.2.1983.

Against the order dated 28.2.1983, Smt. VidyullathaDevi filed L.R.A. No 9 of 1984 before the appellate authority and thesame was dismissed on 23.7.1984. Smt. Vidyullatha Devi furthercarried the matter in revision before this Court in C.R.P. No. 3237 of1985 against the order in L.R.A. No. 9 of 1984 and the said C.R.P. wasdisposed of setting aside the order of L.R.A.T. and remanding thematter to the Primary Tribunal (L.R.T) to re-compute the standardholdings of three declarants, namely, Radha Laxmi Bai, VidyullathaDevi and Jamuna Bai. On such remand, the Primary Tribunal (LRT)determined the standard holding of Smt. Vidyullatha Devi as 7.9389, in

C.C. No. 2796/75, dated 16.1.1988. Aggrieved thereby, Mrs. DamodarReddy preferred L.R.A. No. 8 of 1988 and the said L.R.A. wasdismissed on 28.4.1988. Therefore, the matter was further carried inrevision in C.R.P. No. 3275 of 1989 before this Court and the samewas allowed and the matter was remanded to the Primary Tribunal.Ultimately, the Primary Tribunal determined the standard holding ofSmt. Radha Laxmi Bai, declaring that she is holding a surplus of13.9322 standard holding, by common order passed under Section 9of the Act in C.C. No. 2531/75, 2796/75 and 2797/75 dated 21.5.1993.Further, on 19.11.1993 the L.R.T. passed orders under Section 10 ofthe Act, holding the lands owned by Smt. Uma Reddy as surpluslands, without notice to her. On 30.3.2002, the Primary Tribunal (L.R.T)passed common order re-determining the standard holding of Smt.Radha Laxmi Bai as 13.6377 and confirming the orders dated21.5.1993. On 26.3.2004, the L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 filed by Smt. UmaReddy, questioning the order dated 19.11.1993 holding the subjectlands as surplus lands, was allowed and the matter was remanded tothe Primary Tribunal setting aside the order dated 19.11.1993 in C.C.No.CH/2531/75. The L.R.A. No. 9 of 2002 filed by Vidyullatha Devi,Damodhar Reddy and two other family members was allowed on5.11.2004 setting aside the order dated 30.3.2002 and the matter wasremanded to the Primary Tribunal for disposal in the light of thedirections given in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1985 dated 2.4.1987.

The Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue DivisionalOfficer, on remand, pursuant to the orders in L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998, haspassed orders under Section 10 of the Act, holding that the subjectlands held by Smt. Uma Reddy cannot be said to be surplus lands.Accordingly, the subject lands were ordered to be mutated in favour ofSmt. Uma Reddy, by an order dated 22.12.2004, which attainedfinality. However, on remand by orders of L.R.A.9 of 2002, the L.R.T.has passed orders under Section 9 of the Act on 16.6.2007 re- determining the standard holdings and declaring that Smt. RadhaLaxmi Bai is holding surplus to an extent of 13.6377 S.H. andDamodhar Reddy to an extent of 7.9389 S.H., in C.C. Nos. 2531 and2796 of 1975, respectively. On 19.2.2008 the Primary Tribunal passedorders under Section 10 of the Act selecting again the subject landsand other lands as surplus lands, in C.C. No.2531/75 of Smt. RadhaLaxmi Bai, without notice to Smt. Uma Reddy or their transferees. On19.2.2008, notice in Form IX under Rule 8(1) directing the sons of Smt.Radha Laxmi Bai to surrender the subject lands was issued.

Both the order and the notice in Form No.IX of evendate 19.2.2008 are questioned in this writ petition on the ground thatby order dated 19.2.2008 the L.R.A.T. cannot review its own ordersdated 21.12.2004, which have become final and not set aside by theappellate authority.

Conclusion

Respondent No.2 – Revenue Divisional Officer filedcounter affidavit denying the allegations leveled in the writ petition,stating that Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai was declared as surplus holder toan extent equal to 13.9322 standard holding, in C.C. No. CH/2531/75,under Section 9 of the Act, by an order of the L.R.T. dated 28.2.1983.In the L.R.A. No. 34 of 1994, filed by a third party, namely, SumitraDevi as purchaser of certain land at Chowderguda village, the L.R.T.was directed to delete the land claimed by the said Sumitra Devi.Accordingly, the L.R.T. passed orders on 26.9.1995 in C.C. No.CH/2531/75 for deletion to an extent equal to 0.2945 standard holding,from the original extent of 13.9322 standard holding declared surplusagainst Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai. As such, the extent declared surplusby Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai in C.C.No. CH/2531/1975 has been reducedto 13.6377 standard holding.

The ARDO LRT-II, Rangareddy District has passedorders on 19.11.1993 under Section 10 of the Act and approved the lands at Ammapally village, Kacharam village of ShamshabadMandal. Accordingly, the R.D.O. Chevella has issued Form IX on26.11.1993 and requested the M.R.O. to take over possession of thesurplus land covered in the order dated 19.11.1993. The MandalRevenue Inspector, Shamshabad Mandal has also taken overpossession of the land in Form X on 8.12.1993 including the land inquestion. The necessary entries were taken in pahanies and recordedas ‘Kharij Kaha’.

Further, one Smt. Vidyullatha Devi w/o DamodarReddy, has claimed share from the land held by Smt. Radha LaxmiBai, declarant in C.C. No.CH/2531/1975 and filed L.R.A. No. 9 of2002. The L.R.A.T., vide order dated 5.11.2007, has allowed theappeal filed by the appellants and directed the Primary Tribunal todispose of C.C. Nos. CH/2531/1975, 2596/75 and 2797/75, as per thedirections given by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1985 dated2.4.1987. In pursuance to the said orders of the L.R.A.T., the L.R.T.,Chevella heard the case and passed orders on 16.6.2007 in the abovecases, duly confirming the declarants R. Vijay Kumar, R. Vinod Kumarand Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai as surplus holders to an extent equivalentto 13.6377 standard holding and R. Damodar Reddy i.e. husband ofSmt. Vidyullatha Devi, as surplus holder to an extent of 7.9389standard holding, and directed the son of late Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai tosurrender the surplus land. Accordingly, notice in Form VI was issuedon 27.6.2007. Accordingly, both the brothers have surrendered thelands in Ammapally and other villages, including the land in question.The LRT-cum-RDO, Chevella Division has issued Form VIII on7.1.2008 and published on 12.2.2008 and objections have beenreceived within the stipulated time. The L.R.T. has accepted thesurrender of the lands made under Section 10(4) of the Act towardssurplus land, to an extent of Ac.545-95 cents equivalent to 10.4341standard holding, vide order dated 19.2.2008 in C.C.No.2531/1975.

Accordingly, Form IX notice was issued on 19.2.2008 and possessionof the said land was taken over in Form X, on 9.5.2008.

Further, the L.R.T. Nizamabad passed orderNo.1085/NZB, 1090, 1088, 1938/NZB/75 dated 27.2.1979 underSection 9 of the Act, declaring Smt. Vijitha Bhoopal as surplus holderto an extent of 0.0108 standard holding. Smt. Uma Reddy haspurchased the land through registered sale deed No.208/83 dated19.1.1983 from Vijitha Bhoopal, when the patta of the land in questionstands in the name of Radha Laxmi Bai – declarant inC.C.No.CH/2135/75. So, the land purchased by Smt. Uma Reddy videregistered sale deed No.208/83 dated 19.1.1983 is after the crucialdate 24.1.1971, under Sections 7 and 17 of the APLR (COAH) Act,1973. The State of A.P. filed LRA SR No. 57 of 2005 before theL.R.A.T. Rangareddy District against the orders of the LRT-cum-RDO,Chevella Division dated 22.12.2004, which is pending.

It is further stated that the LRAT passed orders underSection 9 of the Act in C.C.Nos.Ch/2531/75, Ch/2796/75 andCh/2797/74 dated 21.5.1993, declaring the declarants, namely,Damodar Reddy h/o Vidyullatha Devi, declarant in CC No. Ch/2796/75was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 07.9389 S.H. and Smt.Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai, declarant in C.C.No.Ch/2531/75 as surplusholder to an extent of 13.9322. Pursuant to the order passed by theL.R.T., dated 21.5.1993, the lands in question along with other landswere selected as surplus by the L.R.T. vide order dated 19.11.1993and the same was recorded as ‘Kharij Khata’ ceiling surplus land.

Further, Uma Reddy w/o V.R. Reddy filed LRA No. 16of 1998 against the orders of the L.R.T., dated 19.11.1993 and theL.R.A.T, Rangareddy District allowed the appeal on 26.3.2004 settingaside the common order dated 19.11.1993 passed by the L.R.T., anddirecting the L.R.T. to enquire into the claim of the appellants in L.R.A.

No. 16 of 1998 for deletion of the lands in question. The L.R.T. passedorders on 22.12.2004 in C.C. No. 12 of 2004 in C.C. No. Ch/2531/75and directed the M.R.O. Shamshabad Mandal to take action to transferthe lands in S.Nos. 19/20, 19/22, 19/23, 19/25, 19/26 and 19/48, to anextent of Ac.32-08 guntas of Ammapally village, in the revenuerecords, in favour of the purchasers. The State of A.P. filed LPA SRNo. 57 of 2005 before the L.R.A.T. against the orders of L.R.T. dated22.12.2004 in C.C.no.Ch/2531/75. The land purchased by Umareddyafter crucial date, as such, is null and void under Section 7 and 17 ofthe AP LR COAH Act, 1973.

It is further stated that all subsequent transactionsdone during the years 2005, 2007 and 2008 are also null and voidunder Sections 7 and 17 of the APLR (COAH) Act, 1973. The LRT-cum-RDO, Chevella Division passed orders on 16.6.2007 in C.C. Nos.Ch/2531/75, 2596/75 and 2797/75 as per the directions of the L.R.A.T.in LRA No. 9 of 2002 dated 5.11.2004 directing the sons of Late RaniRadha Lakshmi Bai to surrender the surplus land and issued Form VInotice on 27.6.2007. Accordingly, both of them have surrendered theland in Ammapally and other villages, including the land in question.The L.R.T. has accepted the surrender of the land made under Section10(4) of the Act towards surplus land to an extent of Ac.545-05 cents,equivalent to 10.4341 S.H., by order dated 19.2.2008 in C.C. No.Ch/2531/75. Accordingly, Form IX notice was issued by the R.D.O.Chevella Division in CC. No. Ch/2531/75 and possession of thesurplus land was taken over in Form X, on 9.5.2008. The petitionershave purchased the land after the crucial date and, therefore, all thesales and the transactions are null and void under Section 7 and 17 ofthe APLR (COAH) Act, 1973 and they are not entitled for any notice.The writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to bedismissed.

Respondent No.7 also filed counter, almost taking the same stand as is taken by respondent No.2.

Heard both sides.

It appears, in the year 1963, an oral partition waseffected amongst the daughters of Venkatrami Reddy, namely, RaniRadha Lakshmi Bai, Vijitha Bhoopal and Vidyullatha Devi.Immediately thereafter, in the year 1966, the subject land admeasuringAc.32-08 guntas in S.Nos. 19/20, 19/22, 19/23/2, 19/25/2, 19/26/2 and19/48/2 of Ammapally village, Chevella Taluq, Rangareddy District,which fell to the share of Vijitha Bhoopal was put in possession ofUmareddy, as she intended to purchase the same. However, anagreement was entered into only on 17.11.1969 and substantial part ofconsideration was received under the said agreement. Further, it isinteresting to notice that Smt. Radha Lakshmi Bai and Smt. VidyullathaDevi were also signatories to the said agreement as co-executants. Inthe year 1978, when the husband of Umareddy i.e. Venkatrami Reddyfiled declaration under the A.P. Agricultural Land Reforms Act in C.C.No.Ch/2421/75, he had included the lands purchased by Umareddy.

The declarations filed by three daughters ofVenkatrami Reddy were disposed of together and the land purchasedby Umareddy was shown in the declaration filed by Vijitha Bhoopaland the same was excluded, having been sold before the advent of theAct. However, Vidyullatha Devi filed L.R.A. No. 9 of 1984 against theorder dated 28.2.1989 before the appellate authority and the same wasdismissed. Further, the matter was carried in revision in C.R.P. No.3237 of 1995 against the order in L.R.A. 9 of 1984 by Vidyullatha Devibefore this Court and the said C.R.P. was disposed of setting aside theorder of the L.R.A.T. and remanding the matter to the Primary Tribunalto re-compute the standard holdings of three declarants, namely,Radha Lakshmi Bai, Vidyullatha Devi w/o Damodar Reddy andJamuna Reddy. Accordingly, the Primary Tribunal determined the standard holding of Vidyullatha Devi/Damodar Reddy as 7.9389 inC.C. No.Ch/2796/75 dated 16.1.1988. Aggrieved by the same,Vidyullatha Devi preferred appeal in L.R.A. No. 8 of 1988. However,the same was dismissed. Again, C.R.P. 3275 of 1989 was filed andthe same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the PrimaryTribunal. The Primary Tribunal determined the standard holding ofRadha Lakshmi Bai, declaring that she is holding surplus to an extentof 13.9322 S.H., by common order under Section 9 of the Act, in C.C.Nos. Ch/2531/75, 2796/75 and 2797/75. Further, the Primary Tribunalpassed orders under Section 10 of the Act selecting the lands held byUmareddy as surplus lands, without notice to Uma Reddy. ThePrimary Tribunal also determined the standard holdings of RadhaLakshmi Bai as 13.6377, by an order dated 30.3.2002 i.e. virtuallyconfirming the order dated 21.5.1993. In the meanwhile, LRA No. 16 of1998 filed by Umareddy, questioning the order dated 19.11.1993selecting the subject lands as surplus lands, was allowed on26.3.2004 remanding the matter to the Primary Tribunal, setting asidethe order dated 19.11.1993 in CC No. Ch/2531/75 and directing thePrimary Tribunal not to select the lands held by Umareddy.Accordingly, the L.R.T. passed fresh orders on 22.12.2004 underSection 10 of the Act, holding that the lands held by Umareddy cannotbe selected as surplus lands, in C.C. No.2531/75. Further, the saidorder dated 22.12.2004 was implemented by an order dated31.12.2004 by the Primary Authority, ordering mutation of the name ofUmareddy in the revenue records and issuing pattadar passbooks.Further, on 20.5.2005, Umareddy transferred the lands to third partiesand petitioners 4 and 5 are the purchasers of the subject lands fromthe transferee of Smt. Umareddy.

Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that aggrievedby the order passed under Section 9 of the Act confirming the S.H. ofRadha Lakshmi Bai and others by an order dated 30.3.2002,

Vidyullatha Devi filed L.R.A. No. 9 of 2002 and by an order dated5.11.2004 the matter was remanded to the Primary Authority and thePrimary Authority passed an order under Section 9 of the Act on16.6.2007 against all the three declarants and, further, on 19.2.2008 anorder under Section 10 of the Act was passed selecting the lands ofthe petitioners as surplus lands, which were the subject matter ofL.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 dated 26.3.2004, the order of which had attainedfinality on 22.12.2004 in C.C. No. Ch/2531/75. Therefore, the orderdated 19.2.2008 amounts to reviewing the order dated 22.12.2004 andthe Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to review its order. In thisregard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision ofthis Court in Digambar Rao and another v. Govt. of A.P., throughthe Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Nizamabad[[1]]and drawnthe attention of this Court to paras 8 and 13 of the said decision, whichread as under:

“(8). IT is, however, trite to say that in the absenceof any provisions, a power of substantive reviewdoes not exist in a statutory authority. Rule 16 (5) (b)of the rules, as noticed hereinabove, confers alimited power upon the Tribunal, which power isakin to the provisions of Sec. 152 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code' ). So faras the power of review of civil Courts is concerned,the same is not governed by Section 152 of theCode, but is governed by the provisions of Section114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 thereof. It must,therefore, be held that no substantive power ofreview inheres in the Tribunal or appellate Tribunal. ( 13 ) ONE of us V. V. S. Rao, J, in v. Sudhakarrao v.State of A. P. , considered the aforementionedaspect, and noticing the judgments of the apex Courtin Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. andunited India Insurance Co. v. Rajendra singh,observed in para 12:

. . . . While exercising power under rule 16 (5)(b) of the Rules, the Tribunal or appellate Tribunaldoes not interfere with the proceedings underSection 10 of the Act which are in the nature of execution proceedings. The provision is intendedfor rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakesdue to accidental slip or omission. It is made inthe interest of the declarants and it should beinterpreted very widely and even at the stage ofsurrender under section 10 of the Act or at thestage of computation the Tribunal is competent torectify the mistakes. . . . .”.

Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of thecase it cannot be said that the order passed and attained finality inL.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 is being reviewed through the impugned notices.There is some mistake in not noticing the proceedings in L.R.A. No. 16of 1998 which attained finality and the order dated 31.12.2004 of thePrimary Authority directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to mutatename of the predecessor in title i.e. Umareddy. Thereafter, the saidUmareddy also sold out the lands in question to the petitioners or theirpredecessors. It appears, the original proceedings under thedeclaration filed by the daughters of Venkatrami Reddy are in theprocess of attaining finality since the matter was carried in appeal andremanded and again carried in appeal and remanded etc. The orderspassed in L.R.A. Nos. 278 of 1995 and 9 of 2002 and L.R.A. No.16 of1998 simultaneously attained finality. Therefore, the proceedingsunder L.R.A. No. 16 of 1998 were not noticed in other L.R.As. filed bythe three sisters. Further, no notice of any kind was issued to thepetitioners or their predecessors in title.

Therefore, the impugned notice in Form No.IX and theorder dated 19.2.2008 in C.C. No.CH/2531/75 are liable to be setaside and they are accordingly set aside and the writ petition isallowed. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in theway of the respondents-authorities to examine all the aspects andpass a comprehensive order under the Act, after putting all the partiesconcerned on notice.

W.P. No. 20795 of 2008:

In this writ petition, challenge is made against theorder dated 19.2.2008 in C.C.No.CH/2531/75 and the Notice in FormNo.IX for taking possession of the lands to an extent of Ac.21-04guntas in S.Nos. 19/12, 19/18, 19/19, 19/21 of Ammapally village,Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. According to thepetitioners, Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai was the original owner of thesubject lands, having been inherited the same from her father VenkataRami Reddy in an oral partition among Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai,Vijitha Bhoopal and Vidyullatha Devi. The said Radha Lakshmi Baisold the subject land in the year 1969 to A.V. Narasimha Raju,P. Venkata Rama Raju and A. Satyanarayana Raju and executed anunregistered sale deed on 25.3.1972, while receiving fullconsideration, in favour of the said purchasers. Subsequently, RaniRadha Lakshmi Bai executed a registered sale deed bearingdocument No.534/81 dated 1.4.1981 in favour of A.V. Narasimha Rajuand another registered sale deed bearing document No.533/1981dated 1.4.1981 in favour of P. Venkata Rama Raju and A.Satyanarayana Raju. In turn, they sold the subject lands to BalwantReddy and five others and they have filed an application before theMRO, Shamshabad for incorporating their names against S.Nos.19/17, 19/18, 19/19 and 19/21 after issuing Form-VIII notice, calling forobjections if any, for grant of amendment as required under the Recordof Rights Act. Since no objections were received within the stipulatedtime, the acquisition of their rights by way of sale deeds vide documentNos. 4589/02 dated 29.5.2002 and 4574/02 dated 14.6.2002 wasgranted and their was accepted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Recordof Rights Act and the M.R.O. by proceedings dated 8.8.2002 ordered toeffect changes by amending Record of Rights Register of Ammapallyand to carry out necessary changes in the Pahani for the year 2002-03.

It is the further case of the petitioners that they have purchased thesaid lands from Balwant Reddy and 5 others under various registeredsale deeds dated 1.3.2004 vide document bearing Nos. 2296/04 (7acres), 2295/04 (8 acres), 2297/04 (6.04 acres) respectively for a totalconsideration of Rs.10,12,000/- and were put in possession of the saidlands and they have got mutated their names in the revenue recordsand are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

While so, the officials from the office of 3[rd] respondenthave visited the subject lands without any notice on 24.5.2008 statingthat the subject lands are surplus ceiling lands. On the request madeby the petitioners, they have made available the copies of Notice andOrder dated 19.2.2008 passed by 2[nd] respondent. The main grievanceof the petitioners is that the impugned notice and Order dated19.2.2008 in C.C. No.CH/2531/75 were passed without notice to thepetitioners and their predecessors-in-title who were the real owners ofthe subject lands and without reference to the order passed by the verysame 2[nd] respondent dated 30.3.2002 which has become final andimplemented by 3[rd] respondent by order dated 8.8.2002.

In view of the discussion made in the earlier writpetition (W.P. No.11232 of 2008) and the reasons stated therein, theimpugned notice and the Order dated 19.2.2008 are liable to be setaside and they are accordingly set aside and the writ petition isallowed. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in theway of the respondents-authorities to examine all the aspects andpass a comprehensive order under the Act, after putting all the partiesconcerned, on notice.

W.P. No. 11352 of 2008:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedingsin C.C.No.Ch/2531/75 dated 19.2.2008 and C.C.No.Ch/2531/75,Ch/2796/75 and Ch/2797/75 dated 20.2.2008 passed by 2[nd]respondent.

1[st] petitioner is the daughter of Late VenkataramaReddy. On the death of her father, all the properties left by him weredivided among his three daughters, namely, Vidyullatha Devi, VijithaBhoopal and Rani Radha Lakshmi Bai, in an oral partition. As therewere certain disputes, 1[st] petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 129 of 1985on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, RangareddyDistrict at Saroornagar for declaration of title in respect of lands inAmmapalli village and certain other lands. Since the said suit wasdismissed, she filed appeal in A.S. No.2648 of 1989 on the file of thisCourt and the said appeal culminated in passing of a compromisedecree dated 26.4.1995 wherein the lands at Ammapalli village,Rangareddy District were confirmed in favour of 1[st] petitioner.Radhalakshmi Bai died while the suit was pending and respondents 5and 6 along with their another sister were brought on record as L.Rs.and they were also parties to the compromise in A.S. No. 2648 of1989. Respondent No.5 along with another sister filed an applicationto set aside the orders of compromise dated 26.4.1995 and this Courtin ASMP No. 2130 of 2005 and ASMP (SR) No. 17031 of 2005 in A.S.No. 2648 of 1989 dated 13.2.2006 dismissed the application tocondone the delay and to recall the orders. Consequently, thecompromise decree in A.S. No. 2648 of 1989 had become final andbinding on the parties.

While things stood thus, the Special Grade DeputyCollector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division,Rangareddy District passed orders in C.C.No.Ch/2531/75, Ch/2796/75and Ch/2797/75 dated 30.3.2002 under the provisions of the A.P. Land Ceiling Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. On11.4.1975, 1[st] petitioner submitted declaration to the land ceilingauthorities. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the PrimaryAuthority dated 30.3.2002, she preferred appeal before the L.R.A.T. inL.R.A. 9 of 2002. The said L.R.A. was allowed on 5.11.2004 settingaside the orders dated 30.3.2002 and remanding the matter to thePrimary Authority with a direction to dispose of all the three cases asper the directions given by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3237 of 1985 dated2.4.1987. The said orders became final. After remand, the L.R.T.passed orders in C.C. No.Ch/2531/75 16.6.2007 declaringrespondents 5 and 6 as surplus holders to an extent of 13.6377 S.H.and the husband of 1[st] petitioner i.e. Damodar Reddy as surplusholder to an extent of 7.9389 S.H. and the said surplus lands weredirected to be surrendered. Aggrieved by the said orders, they filedL.R.A. 21 of 2007 before the L.R.A.T. and the same is pending.

While the things stood thus, according to the petitioners,respondent No.2 passed orders in C.C.Ch/2531/75 on 19.2.2008 andC.C.No.Ch/2534/75 on 20.2.2008 directing surrender of lands, ofwhich the petitioners were not aware and came to know only on12.5.2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that they did not receiveany notice of these orders nor were they made as parties to theproceedings.

In view of the discussion made in the earlier writpetition (W.P. No.11232 of 2008) and the reasons stated therein, theimpugned orders herein are liable to be set aside and they areaccordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, it ismade clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondents-authorities to examine all the aspects and pass a comprehensive orderunder the Act, after putting all the parties concerned on notice.

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

Date: 30-12-2009.

MVB.

[1]2001 (6) ALT 226 (F.B)