P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition made a declaration under the a. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in C. C. Nos. 1469 and 1470/gdr/75. The question that was considered by the land Reforms Tribunal in that case was, whether Exs. A. 17 to A. 23, which were seven registered documents, were hit by Sec. 7 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, herein-after referred to as the act . Sec. 7 reads as follows"7. Special Provision in Respect of Certain Transfers Etc. Already made :where on or after the 24 January, 1971 but before the notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange, settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever, any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him, then the burden of providing that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on such person, and where he has not so proved, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregaened for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of such person". In support of the writ petitioners case in above mentioned C. C. Nos. 1469 and 1470, the writ petitioners adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, showing that the aforesaid Exs. A 17 to A. 23 alienating the property of the petitioners were not hit by section 7 of the Act. The Primary Tribunal before whom these documents had been adduced as evidence, held that the seven sale deeds referred to above were in fact executed but could not be counted in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of S. 7 of the Act; in other words; the Primary Tribunal held that the burden of proving that the transfers were not affected in anticipation of or with a view to avoiding or defeating th object of the law, was not successfully discharged by the writ petitioners. Against that order of the Primary Tribunal, which had disregarded the alienations and computed those extents of land in the holding of the petitioners, the petitioners preferred an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the finding of the primary Tribunal only on the strange ground that once a sale was found to be true and genuine, such a sale has to be accepted. In CRP. Nos. 1032 and 1033 of 1979 preferred by the State, the Appellate orders were confirmed by this courts by its order dt. 14th of August, 1979. Now if appears the Authorised Officer, basing himself upon some complaints received by him from the general public against the conduct of the present writ petitioners in the above CCs. filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal, which is the Primary Tribunal, asking for the reopening of the C. Cs. and recalling of the orders earlier passed, on the ground that the petitioners had used bogus receipts and played fraud on the Tribunal. The Land Reforms tribunal, basing upon that application filed by the Authorised Officer, reopened the case and posted the above C C. s. for hearing to 26th February, 1981. Accordingly; notice has been issued to the petitioners to attend the proceedings. The present writ petition had been filed challenging that notice.

( 2 ) THE first question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition is that the Land Reforms Tribunal has no power to review the order passed by it earlier, which was confirmed by the appellate Tribunal and by this court. The argument is that there is no power vested in the Tribunal by any statute empowering it to review its orders which has becomes final. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in any case, the Primary Tribunal is not the competent authority to review the earlier orders passed by it, which have been merged into the levisiomal orders passed by this court.

( 3 ) THE question whether the L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document