( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed for the issue of an order or direction directing the respondents herein not to reopen the judgment of the case passed in C. C. No. K/2141 of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms tribunal, Kalvakurthy, Mahboobnagar district. The petitioner, his father and his other two major brothers filed four different declarations under section 8 of the Andhra pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act . L. C. C. No. 2141 of 1975 referred to above related to the declaration filed by the present petitioner. The first respondent in the writ petition is the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalvakurthy. The second respondent is the Land Reforms commissioner, Government of Andhra pradesh. The third respondent is the then chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

( 2 ) IN respect of the four declarations filed by the petitioner, his father and his two brothers, the Verification Officer has filed a report stating that none of them hold any land in excess of the ceiling area. The first respondent passed orders to that effect, in all the four cases on 27th September, 1976 and obtained the signature of the petitioner s brother. The first respondent found that each of them was holding only land equivalent to 0-7852 standard holding which is less than the ceiling area, namely one standard holding. The present writ petition is filed alleging that the third respondent being inimical towards the petitioner got an application filed before himself by a third party called Ramakrishnayya stating that the Land reforms Tribunal and the Verification Officer were in league with the petitioner and when there was excess land cases were wrongly closed as if there was no excess land. On the basis of that application, the third respondent directed the Commissioner of land Reforms, the second respondent, to make an enquiry. Thereafter, the second respondent seized the files from the Land reforms Tribunal and made an enquiry. The first respondent subsequently issued a notice to the petitioner purporting to reopen the enquiry and posting C. C. No. 2141 of 1975 for fresh enquiry to 2nd June, 1977. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE facts that a petition was filed before the third respondent and he directed the second respondent to make an enquiry and after making an enquiry the second respondent directed the Land Reforms Tribunal, kalvakurthy to reopen the case are admitted.

( 4 ) TWO questions arise for consideration : (1) Whether the Commissioner of Land reforms can give a direction to the Land reforms Tribunal to reopen the case; and (2) whether the Land Reforms Tribunal has jurisdiction to reopen the case.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents has admitted that for none of the questions there is a provision made in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The Land Reforms Tribunals appointed under the Act are quasi-judicial tribunals. They have to act independently, not at the direction of any authority. Certainly the Land Reforms Commissioner has no power to give a direction to the land Reforms Tribunal to reopen the case. Since there is no provision made in the Act for reopening of the cases once disposed of by the Land Reforms Tribunal, it has no power to reopen the cases once disposed of.

( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ pettion is allowed and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalvakurthy, as directed not to reopen the case, L. C. C. No. K/2141 of 1975. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document