Judgment

OZA, J:- This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petn. No. 4818 of 1973 wherein the writ petition filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner was dismissed.

2. In the Writ Petition before the High Court the petitioner sought mandamus directing respondent to pay forthwith to the petitioner compensation for the lands surrendered by her under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1961. A further direction was sought prohibiting the third respondent from proceeding with the revision under section 19(1) of the Act as amended by Act No.1 of 1972 w.e.f. 19-1-72.

3. Necessary facts are that the petitioners husband owned extensive lands in Gadwal. After the Act came into force the revenue Divisional Officer Gadwal issued a notice under section 3(2) of the Act directing the petitioners husband to file a declaration of his holdings. The petitioners husband accordingly filed the, declaration. Thereafter he died in 1969 leaving behind the petitioner and three minor children.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer held an enquiry under section 6 of the Act and by his order dated 25-1-71 he held that the petitioners husbands legal representatives were holding 29.72 family holdings in excess of the Ceiling area which they were entitled to hold.

5. A notice was then issued to the petitioner under section 7(2) on 25-1-71 requiring the petitioner to file a statement indicating the land which she proposes to surrender.

6. The petitioner thereupon filed a detailed statement of lands she proposes to surrender on 19-3-71.

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer on being satisfied after an enquiry that the lands proposed to be surrendered satisfy the requirements of Sec. 7(1) and (2) of the Act had passed an order on 31-3-71 under section 7(3) of the Act approving the surrender of 713.16 acres (an equivalent of 29.72 family holdings) by the petitioner.

8. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of compensation in respect of lands surrendered by her under section 10 of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the compensation of Rs. 6,44,265.09 in respect of lands surrendered by her.

9. The Revenue Divisional Officer published a notification containing particulars of the lands surrendered by the petitioner and the compensation payable therefor in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 7-7-71 according to Section 11 of the Act.

10. Instead of paying the compensation as determined, the District Revenue Officer Mahboobnagar issued a notice dated 21-3-72 proposing to revise the orders of the Revenue .Divisional Officer dated 15-4-71 fixing compensation of the lands surrendered by the petitioner. This notice is purported to have been issued under section 19 clause 1 of the Act as amended.

11. The petitioner filed an objection contending that the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to revise the order fixing compensation which was passed before, as on the day the Divisional Officer issued notice the order sought to be revised had become final. in spite of this the 3rd respondent has not disposed of the revision proceedings and it was because of this writ petition was filed before the High Court.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended before us that once under section 7 the land which is in excess of the ceiling limit is determined and a statement of surrender is filed by a holder which is accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 3 of Section 7 the land vests in the State and thereafter the authorities have no jurisdiction to attempt to revise the compensation or any order which has already been passed under the Act.

13. Whereas on behalf of the State it was contended that Clause 3 of Section 7 uses the word "deemed to have been surrendered" which clearly indicates that although by an order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer the proposal made by the holder about the surrender of land is accepted and it is finalised but still it is only deemed s