S.V. Bhatt, J.

1. The grievance in the writ petition arises under the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'Act 1 of 1973) and the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 (for short 'Act 10 of 1977'). The subject matter of present writ petition is an extent of Ac.5-28 cents at Pedakallepalli. The details of petition schedule are as follows:      

2. The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings Rc. No. CC/1924/D/75 dated 08.12.1998 of 1st respondent, as illegal, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. The effect of impugned proceedings is that the 1st respondent decided to acquire the petition lands in terms of Section 7(5) of Act 10 of 1977 without dispossessing the assignees/respondents 3 to 21 from the petition schedule lands. The 2nd respondent is further requested to report the probable amount of compensation payable to the petitioners for getting funds from social welfare department. In short, through the impugned proceedings, the 1st respondent in exercise of the purported power under Act 10 of 1977 directed acquisition of petition lands instead of restoration of possession to the writ petitioners who are found to be non-surplus holders under Act 1 of 1973.

4. The petitioners on the one hand have been canvassing for re-transfer of petition lands to them and on the other respondent Nos. 3 to 21 are contesting for continuation of possession. As a result, a series of cases under Act 1 of 1973 and under Act 10 of 1977 have been filed and decided. The parties on both sides rely upon the same chronology of dates and events but the submission is made which suits the stand the party has taken. With a view to appreciating the real controversy between the parties, I consider it appropriate to refer to the events in the matter in the same chronological order.

5. The writ petitioners are daughters of one Prabhala Venkata Krishna Sastry. Prabhala Venkata Krishna Sastry and Prabhala Seetharamaiah were the sons of late Adinarayana Avadani. It is admitted fact that the said Adinarayana Avadani was the absolute owner of the petition lands including other ancestral and self-acquired properties. He died in the year 1927 leaving behind him his two sons, to share both ancestral and self-acquired properties. It is a concluded finding of fact in the earlier round of litigation that late Prabhala Venkata Krishna Sastry and Prabhala Seetharamaiah partitioned the ancestral and self-acquired properties of Adinarayana Avadhani. The father of petitioners was given one third share in the ancestral properties and half share in the self-acquired properties. Proportionately, Seetharamaiah was given two-thirds share in ancestral properties and one third share in self-acquired properties of Adinarayana Avadhani. On 01.06.1947, Prabhala Krishna Sastry died leaving behind him the petitioners as successors/legal heirs since their mother pre-deceased the father. It is the case of petitioners that Seetharamaiah was looking after all the properties fallen to their shares as well. The petitioners aver that Seetharamaiah filed a declaration in CC. No. 1924/Divi/75 under Section 8 of Act 1 of 1973, including the petition schedule lands.

6. At the first instance, it was found by the Land Reforms Tribunal that Seetharamaiah possessed 1.2639 standard holdings and the same is in excess of one standard holding. On 09.12.1976, the respondents have taken possession of petition lands from the declarant i.e., P. Seetharamaiah towards surrender of excess lands. On 25.04.1977, the sa