Advocates:
MOHANPRASAD MEHARIAJOHN MATHEW

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4461 of 2005

PETITIONER:

The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

T. Suryachandra Rao

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/2005

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7944 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Mandal Revenue

Officer (in short the ’Revenue Officer’) Peddapuram, East

Godavari call in question legality of the judgment rendered

by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

By the impugned order the High Court held that the Land

Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada (in

short "the Appellate Tribunal") and the Land Reforms

Tribunal, Kakinada (in short the "Tribunal") were not

justified in holding that the respondents had fraudulently

taken advantage by suppression of facts; thereby taking

benefit under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on

Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (in short ’the Act’).

Basic features of the case which need to be noted are

as under:

The respondent as declarant submitted a declaration as

regards determination of his ceiling limit of land under the

Act. The Appellate Tribunal passed an order dated 16.11.1978

determining the ceiling limit of the declarant to be surplus

and declared 0.4388 S.H. land to be in excess of the ceiling

limit on the notified date. Thereafter, certain lands were

surrendered and surrender was accepted by order dated

8.5.1991 by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land

Reforms Kakinada. Subsequently, it was noticed that the land

which was surrendered had already been acquired in

proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (in short

the ’L.A. Act’). Therefore, a notice was issued on 8.2.1995

proposing to consider declaration of alternative lands as

surplus in lieu of the lands which were earlier surrendered.

The Tribunal passed order in this regard after verifying the

records of the land acquisition proceedings. An appeal was

carried to the Appellate Tribunal and the same was

dismissed. A revision was carried under Section 21 of the

Act before the High Court, which by the impugned order held

that it was for the Tribunal to have considered the

correctness of the declaration made by the declarant. After

having accepted the land to be surrendered, it was not to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

open to the Tribunal to vary the order. It was held that

even though power was available to the Tribunal to reopen

the matter and pass necessary orders when fraud was

practiced, in the instant case the Tribunal having accepted

the matter after enquiry, it was not open to take a

different view.

Though the High Court accepted on principle that the

Tribunal has ample power to reopen the matter when the error

is apparent on the face of record, it held that once the

enquiry had been conducted question of reopening the matter

did not arise. It was held that under Section 10(3) of the

Act the Tribunal has to make an enquiry after statement

relating to surrender is filed. Merely because in the

statement it was indicated that some land was proposed to be

surrendered there was no scope for reopening the matter even

though the land was not available to be surrendered.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

approach of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. There is no

dispute that the land which was offered for surrender had

already been acquired under the L.A. Act and there was no

scope for the respondent to again offer the said land. This

was clearly fraudulent act and, therefore, the High Court

was not justified in its view.

In response, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submitted that having accepted the land offered

for surrender after enquiry, it was not op