Point of Law: Action of the respondents has not been on account of any mala fides but under the belief that they are protecting the property of the State.

ORDER :

As C.C.No.535 of 2020 arises out of the proceedings in W.P.No.8907 of 2020, both these cases are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. A quick review, of the facts in the present case, is required before adjudicating on the issues raised in these cases.

3. One Sri Korada Venkataswamy Naidu was declared as surplus land holder for an extent of Ac.45.59 cents by proceedings bearing LCC No.230/75 dated 29.08.1978 issued by the Land Reforms Tribunal and Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”). These proceedings were in relation to the lands owned by the declarant in Peddipalem, Anandapuram and Vellanki villages in Anandapuram Mandal and Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The declarant gave a surrender statement under which he agreed to handover Ac.28.84 cents of land in Madhurawada village and the possession of the said lands is said to have been taken over by the Land Reforms authorities on 27.07.1984 under Section 10(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the declarant filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.1 of 1989 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal and directed that alternative lands in lieu of the lands surrendered in Madhurawada village should be accepted from the declarant. The matter went into appeal and finally, the Land Reforms Tribunal agreed for taking over Ac.17.70 cents of land in different villages in lieu of the lands in Madhurawada village. These lands were taken over. However, after calculating the extent of land taken over, the Land Reforms authorities held that another Ac.11.14 cents of land had to be surrendered.

4. By that stage, Sri Korada Venkataswamy Naidu passed away and his two sons Sri Sadhu Jagannadharao and Sri K.V.S. Suryarao gave their consent to surrender Ac.11.14 cents of land in Sy.No.39/5-part of Vemulavalasa village. Initially, this land was sought to be taken over. However, these two persons changed their view and again filed a petition, stating that only Ac.6.63 cents needs to be handed over. There was further litigation, wherein these two persons approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Without going into the details of the entire litigation, it can be stated that after these two persons passed away, their wives, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, had informed the Land Reforms Tribunal that they had acquired Ac.5.57 cents each in Sy.No.40 Part of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham mandal through registered deeds of sale dated 01.06.2016 and requested the Land Reforms Tribunal to accept these two bits of land in lieu of the land proposed for surrender, by their husbands, in Sy.No.39/5-Part of Vemulavalasa village. At that stage, the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Visakhapatnam, requested the Lands Reform Tribunal to take into account the fact that the acquisition of the additional Ac.11.14 cents of land in Badanapadu village and the acquisition of another Ac.11.14 cents of land in Cheemalapalli village should be taken into account while considering the total lands mentioned in the original declaration filed by the original declarant.

6. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Visakhapatnam accepted the offer of the petitioners to take over Ac.5.57 cents each in Sy.No.40 of Badanapadu village by proceedings dated 05.10.2017. These proceedings were challenged by the authorised officer before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal vide orders dated 07.09.2018 in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018 to the effect that further acquisitions of land in Cheemalapalli Village and Badanapadu village, should be taken into account to arrive at the total lands mentioned in the original declaration filed by the original declarant.

7. Aggrieved by the said orders in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018, the petitioners approached this Court by way of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018, which is pending. This Court by interim order dated 20.09.2018 had suspend