K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE sole question that falls for consideration in these two revision petitions directed against the orders of the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar, in L. R. A. No. 893 of 1977 and in i. A. No. 3322 of 1977 in L. R. A. No. 898 of 1977 is whether the appellate tribunal has jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal filed before it under section 20 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Act, 19/3 for default.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in both the revisions are the declarants in c. C. Nos. 338,339, 340/knr/75, 342, 343, 344, 345/knr/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, they preferred appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Karimnagar. On the date to which the appeals were posted for hearing, the petitioners were absent and their counsel reported no instructions. In those circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals for default. The petitioners filed I. A. No. 3322 of 1977 supported by the affidavit of the 6th petitioner to the effect that the petitioners 1 to 5 are the sons of the 6th petitioner, that they applied for certified copies of pahanies and mutaiion register, but they could not obtain the same, that they were expected to bring these copies to their advocate on 22-7- 77, that on that day the 6th petitioner went to his son, who is a practising advocate at Hyderabad, for obtaining signatures on the applications to be filed before the Tahsildar, and that he could not attend the tribunal on 22-7-1977 as he was held up at Hyderabad. In those circumstances, he could not be present before the Tribunal and the dvocate also reported no instructions. They requested the court that the order dismissing the appeals for default may be set aside and the appeals heard on merits. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that the"reasons assigned for non-prosecution of the appeal when it was called on 22-7-1977 are flimsy and do not carry conviction with them. We do not see sufficient grounds for setting aside the dismissal order dt: 22-7-1977. "

( 3 ) THE petitioners have filed a Revision Petition No. 2871 of 1977 against the order dismissing the appeal for default and a revision petition No. 2870 of 1977 against the order dismissing the petition i. A. 3322 of 1977 filed for setting aside the order of dismissal for default.

( 4 ) IN these revision petitions, Mr. N. Subbareddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeals for default, that it was bound to dispose of the appeals on merits or adjourn the hearing of the appeals. To dispose of this contention it is necessary to read certain provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) SEC. 20 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilins on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 lays down as follows:-"an appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Tribunal or the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of the date of communication of the order, and the Appellate Tribunal snail pass such orders on the appeal as it deems fit and such order shall, subject to revision under Sec. 21, be final". As per the said provision, when an appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal or the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Appellate Tribunal is required to pass "such orders on the appeal as it deems fit. " Section 22 which empowers Tribunals to exercise some of the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as it is relevant for our present purpose, reads as follows:- 22 (1): The Appellate Tribunal. the Tribunal the Revenue divisional Officer and any Officer authorised by the Tribunal orthe Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise any power under this Act shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document