MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of judgment dated 13-10-1993 passed by the chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, karimnagar in Appeal Case No. 54/93.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner precisely is that one Dr. (Smt) A. Arunjyothi, the 2nd respondent, surrendered an extent of ac. 5-00 of land out of S. No. 858-D, situated in molangoor village of Keshavapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district, pursuant to her filing declaration before the Land Reforms tribunal. The authorities accepted such surrender and the land vested in the government. Consequent upon the vesting of the land in the Government, the 1st respondent was assigned an extent of 21/2 acres of land in the said S. No. 858-D.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent instead of surrendering her own land had surrendered the land which had fallen to the share of the petitioner; that the authorities without verification and without the assistance of proper sketches, which were to be filed along with the declaration, have erroneously accepted the surrender of the land by the 2nd respondent; that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that his land was surrendered by the 2nd respondent and that he was in fact in possession the land and doing agricultural work. It is also contended that it was only when the 1st respondent tried to claim the land, the petitioner moved the civil court by way of a suit, which is pending adjudication and that in order to unearth the reality of surrender by the 2nd respondent and in order to get the mistake rectified, he filed an application before the primary Tribunal for rectification of mistake under Rule 16 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules. The primary tribunal, therefore, directed the Assistant director, Survey and Land Records, karimnagar to enquire into the matter and submit a report. The Assistant Director along with the Inspector of Survey and Mandal surveyor inspected the land and submitted a report stating that the land surrendered by the 2nd respondent belonged to the petitioner. Basing on the said report, the primary Tribunal directed rectification of the records.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the primary Tribunal, the 1st respondent, who was assigned the land of 21/2 acres in 1988, carried the matter by way of an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, karimnagar. Before the appellate Tribunal, the 1 st respondent contended that there was no notice to him by the primary Tribunal and that the primary Tribunal erroneously reviewed the matter, which, in the circumstances, ought not to have entertained the application for review. It was further contended before the appellate Tribunal that the 2nd respondent surrendered the land as long back as in 1977; that an extent of 21/2 acres of (arid, out of the land surrendered by the 2nd respondent in S. No. 858-D, was assigned to him by the Government in 1988; , that by virtue of said assignment, he is in possession of the land; that he is the affected party and that the primary Tribunal has no power to review the matter, which has reached a finality.

( 5 ) THE appellate Tribunal considered the entire aspect with reference to the record before it and held that the primary Tribunal was wrong in directing rectification of the records. The appellate Tribunal also held that the surrender of land was proper and based on the sketches submitted by the 2nd respondent; that the land of the petitioner was not at all surrendered by the 2nd respondent; that on surrender, the assignment was effected in favour of the 1st respondent in 1988 as per the relevant provisions and that the order made by the primary Tribunal is unwarranted. Accordingly, the appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the primary Tribunal. Against the said judgment, the present revision petition is filed.

( 6 ) SRI Aga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this is a case where lot of injustice has been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document