SEETHARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) OUR learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. before whom this Writ Petition challenging the authority and jurisdiction of the Land Reforms Tribunal to reopen the order passed earlier by it, came up for hearing, thought it proper that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the question, inasmuch as there is no decision of this Court on the said question and also because there are several such Writ Petition pending for decision before this Court.

( 2 ) THE facts that led to this writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a declaration of his holding as required by Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1975, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". In col. (6) of the declaration, he mentioned 5 minor children besides his wife as the members of his family. The Tahsildar stated in his verification as per Rule 4 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974, that the petitioners family consists of seven members; and an issue, namely issue No. 7 was framed by the Tribunal to the effect , "whether declarants family unit consists of seven members?" It appears from the order of the Tribunal that in view of the Tahsildar, the authorised Officer did not dispute the petitioners averment in this behalf. The petitioner also deposed on oath that his family unit consists of seven members. In view of the above, the Tribunal held, by its order dated 12-4-1976, that the petitioners family unit consists of seven members and since he is entitled to an additional 2/5th holding on that account, his holding is within the permissible limit. The said order became final, not having been appealed against. About six months later, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 6-10-1976, impugned herein, intimating the petitioner that the case has been reopened at the instance of the authorised officer since he has raised an objection that the petitioner was not having two of the five children mentioned by him in col. (6) of the declaration. In other words the allegation was that the petitioner has falsely claimed that he was having five children while, in fact, he had only three children. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to adduce evidence in that behalf, failing which he has been informed that the case would be decided on the basis of the material available on record. It is this notice that give rise to this writ petition challenging the said notice as wholly without jurisdiction and incompetent on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to reopen a matter which is once closed finally.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit, sworn to by the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Mahabubabad (2nd Respondent), it is stated that four months after the declaration of the petitioner was disposed of, a compliant petition was lodged before the Collector, alleging that the petitioner-declarant has cheated the Government by stating that his family consists of seven members while, in fact, it comprised only of five members. Thereupon, the collector directed the Tahsildar. Mahabubabad, to conduct a local inquiry and report. On inquiry, it was found that the petitioner had falsely alleged as having five children while in fact, he was having only three. This was deliberately misrepresented in order to defraud the Government. For that reason, it is stated, the Tribunal issued notice to the parties and the said allegation was sought to be enquired into. The petitioner, without meeting the said allegation on merits, has filed this Writ Petition.

( 4 ) THE contention of Sri K. Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Land Reforms Tribunal has no authority or jurisdiction to reopen or review its own order, as neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder confer any such power on the said Authority. For this he relied on the Judgment of this Court dated 7-3-1978 in W. P. No. 1549 of 1977, wherein Ramchandra Raju, J. held:-"certainly t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document