The final order under Sec. 9 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, determining the excess land liable to be surrendered, cannot be questioned at the stage of surrender under Sec. 10 of the Act.

K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. The common cation of low that arise concideration in these two revision petitions directed against the order of the land Reforms appellate Tribunal is whether at the stage of surrender the order made under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 8 of the A. P. land Refroms (Celing on Agrl. Holdings) act. 1973 could be questioned and a pint not taken before the Land Reforms Appellate Tr. bunal could noe be rasided.

( 2 ) THE Declarant had P referred L. R. R No. 208/77 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal,nizamabad. and that was desposed of by an order dated 31-5- 1977 determining the execess land liable to be surrendered by the declarant at 0. 6026 stander Holdings. Nither before the Primary Tribunal nor before the Appllate Tribunal in the said LR. A, did the declarant take the plea that some extent of land which was computed in his holding was " Pote kharab" and as such it was not "land" within the meaning of the land as held by this Court in K. Rama Reddy vs. State of A. P. , (1) 1978 (1) A. P. . l. J. 92. When he was called upon to surrender the; excess land of 06066 standard holdings as determined in LR. A 208/77 he included in his holding plea that the Tote Kharab land was wrongly included in his holding and as such the same should be execluded and the was liable to surrender that land which may be found to be in excess after the deletion of the potekharab land. That plea, was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that such plea not having been taken in L. R. A. No. 208/77 cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage. of surrender The declarant carried the matter in appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal by its order dated 30-12-78 in L. R. A. No. 28/79 of the allowed the appeal and directed the ascertainment and exlusion of the pote-kharab land in computing the holding of the petitioner s family unit. Petition No. 4871/79.

( 3 ) C. R. P No. 4872/89 is also filed similar curcuments against the order of the Land Refroms Appellate Tribunal, Nizamabad in L. R. A. 10/79. While the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in the previous appeal of the declarant L. R. A. 133/77 dated 26-9-77 declaring the excess Land liable to be surrendered by him to be 0. 2300 standarda holdings had become final, he had raised the plea that "pote-Kharab" land should be exculded. That plea having been rejected by the promary tribunal he carreied the matter in appleal LRA 10/79 which was allowed on 19-2-79.

( 4 ) AFTER a declaration under Sec. 8 is filed by a person, the Tribunal is required to determine whether that person holds or is deemed to hold on the notified date an extent of land in excess of the ceiling area to which that person is entitled and if so the extent of land so held in excess as on that date. Any person aggrieved by the determination of the holding is entitled to prefer an appeal under S. 20 of the Act to the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal. Against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal the aggrieved party may file a revision under Section 20 of the Act. Once the order passed under Section 9 becomes final, the person holding the land in excess of the ceiling area is liable to surrender the land held in excess as laid down in S. 10 of the Act. At that stage there is no provision for again revising the order passed under S. 9 which has become final. The acceptance or rejection of the surrender is again an order passed by the Tribunal which may be carried in appeal and revision under Secs. 20 and 21 of the Act. But nonetheless what can be considered in that apppeal or revision is whether surrender is in accordance with the final order under Sec. 9 and whether the surrender of any land is improperly rejected and whether the Tribunal was justified in directing some other land to be surrendered than the one offered by the declarant. These proceedings under Sec. 10 are more or less in the nature of execution in which the correctness of the order under Sec. 9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document