IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1960 OF 2007 DATED:24.06.2010 Between:
Raju Bai … Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep. by Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal Nirmal, Adilabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1960 OF 2007 ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar, dt.22.1.2007, in L.R.A. No.4 of 2002.
The appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, was against the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nirmal, in proceedings LR/CC No.1351/75, dt.24.4.2002. The appellate Tribunal found that the revision petitioner has submitted her declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”) on which the Primary Tribunal conducted enquiry and passed an order on 21.2.1977 holding the declarant to have a surplus land of 1.4721 standard holdings. In L.R.A. No.350 of 1977 against the same, there was an order of dismissal dt.3.11.1977 and in C.R.P. No.4343 of 1980, the matter was remitted back to the Primary Tribunal for fresh disposal, by the High Court. Thereafter, the pleas of the declarant were again negatived against which L.R.A. No.49 of 1982 was filed which was allowed on 21.6.1983 remitting the matter back to the Primary Tribunal. After remand, again the declarant failed, against which L.R.A. No.8 of 1984 was filed which was again allowed on 13.2.1985 remitting the matter back to the Primary Tribunal. Once again the Primary Tribunal passed an order on 24.1.1986 against which L.R.A. No.5 of 1986 was filed. After another order of remand, the declarant again failed before the Primary Tribunal, against which L.R.A. No.9 of 1990 was again filed which was dismissed on 22.6.1992. In C.R.P. No.3152 of 1992 against the same, the High Court remanded the matter back again on 26.12.1995 and after enquiry, the Primary Tribunal passed final orders on 29.12.1999 holding that the declarant has 0.4603 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area. A notice was given to the declarant to surrender the excess land and the declarant proposed certain lands for surrender. After verification, the declarant was given a fresh notice to provide alternate lands as some of the lands offered to surrender were either submerged or not fit for cultivation or were under encroachment. The declarant did not exercise her option on receiving fresh notice, and then the Primary Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 10(5) of the Act, selected the lands for taking possession, made a publication in Form No.IX on 24.4.2002, sent a copy of it to the declarant and also submitted to the Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer. On 27.4.2002 the Mandal Revenue Officer took possession of the said surplus lands and the Revenue Divisional Officer was informed.
The Appellate Tribunal found that the declarant kept quiet for about one year after receiving notice for furnishing the alternate lands and she cannot say that she was unaware of the possession taken on 27.4.2002 having received the impugned order dt.24.4.2002 a copy of which was marked to her. The Tribunal also noted on perusal of the record that the declarant received the order of the Tribunal dt.24.4.2002 on 27.4.2002 for which there was an acknowledgement to that effect. As an appeal has to be filed within one month from the date of receipt of the order under sub- section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal found the appeal filed on 3.6.2002 and not before 27.5.2002 to be barred by time. The Appellate Tribunal also noted that the order dt.29.12.1999 was also not challenged and both due to the absence of establishment of the contention of the declarant and also due to bar of limitation, the appeal was dismissed.
The revision petitioner contended herein that the Appellate Tribunal did not notice the facts as disclosed by the material on record and the initiation of the proceedings for surrender of some other lands than those occupied by the declarant was bad in law. The declarant pleaded that the Appellate Tribunal should have noted that the appeal was filed within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and is within limitation. The declarant also pleaded that the impugned order is vitiated by the various other reasons specified in the grounds of revision.
Sri Ramachandra Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration are heard.
Irrespective of the other considerations, it is seen from the grounds of appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar, in L.R.A. No.4 of 2002 that the revision petitioner did not raise any plea of not having been communicated the order dt.24.4.2002 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nirmal, which is in respect of surrender of alternate lands. The grounds of appeal were as though the revision petitioner had knowledge of the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal which was under challenge. The Appellate Tribunal had specifically noticed from a perusal of the record that the proceedings of the Primary Tribunal dt.24.4.2002 were served on 27.4.2002 on the declarant in proof of which fact there was an acknowledgement. The recording of the said fact by the Appellate Tribunal can be straightaway accepted by this Court without any reference to the record again. In the light of the circumstances arising out of the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and personal perusal of the record by the Appellate Tribunal and also from the fact of claiming the appeal to have been filed within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in the grounds of revision herein, the revision petitioner herself obviously admits the receipt of order of the Land Reforms Tribunal without specifying as to when the said order was received. Sub- section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides for an appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of communication of any impugned order and the statutory period of limitation fixed by the said provision of the Special Statute cannot be extended by the Appellate Tribunal or by this Court in exercise of any power in contravention of the specific provision of the Statute. Therefore, when the appeal is barred by time, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal without going into the various other grounds raised by the declarant – revision petitioner. While the Civil Revision Petition has to fail primarily on the ground of limitation, it may also be noted that the reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal otherwise also do not appear to be perverse or unreasonable and do not appear to present a case of improper exercise of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Appellate Tribunal. In any view, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in this Civil Revision Petition.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 24.06.2010 bnr