ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment, dated 16-9-2005, in L.R.A. No. 8 of 2002 passed by the Court of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, N.T.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, under Section 21 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity). The facts leading to filing of this revision petition, in brief, are noticed hereunder. The father of the two petitioners, Mohammed Mirza filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act showing the agricultural land in his holding before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District. By proceedings, dated 22-12-1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in C.C.No.CH/2961/ 75 (declaration filed by father of the petitioners) determining an extent of 4.7947 standard holdings as excess land owned by the declarant on the notified date, i.e., 1-1-1975. The declarant also surrendered excess land to the Government, which was also accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal. The entire proceedings became final. In the year 1992, the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 4-A of the Act for re-opening the proceedings and for re-determining the standard holdings out of the lands declared by the original declarant. They claim that they, being the major sons on the notified date, are entitled to one standard holding each. The petition was dismissed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, they approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Act. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the original authority. After remand by order, dated 26-2-2002, the Land Reforms Tribunal re-determined the excess holding observing that the petitioners and original declarant are entitled to three standard holdings instead of one standard holding as was determined earlier in 1976. The Land Reforms Tribunal came to the conclusion that the family of the original declarant consists of his wife and two major sons, i.e., the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the State preferred appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal being L.R.A.No. 8 of 2002, which was dismissed (sic. allowed) on 16-9-2005.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners herein were major sons when their father filed declaration in 1976 and therefore after coming into force of Section 4-A of the Act with retrospective effect from 1 -1 -1975, they are entitled for increase of the holding equal to the ceiling area applicable to each of the petitioners. Secondly, he would urge that the impugned judgment is erroneous, in that when initially L.R.A. No. 46 of 1994 was remanded for limited purpose, it was improper for the Appellate Tribunal to set-aside the order of the Primary Tribunal.
3. This Court perused the order in LR.A. No. 46 of 1994, dated 30-3-1998 and order, dated 26-2-2002, passed by the Primary Tribunal as well as the impugned Judgment. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court does not find any revisable grave error in the impugned Judgment. Be it noted that Section 21 of the Act confers limited power on this Court to revise any order passed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal only when such order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or failure to exercise jurisdiction or exercise of excess jurisdiction. None of these are present in this case nor they are demonstrated by the petitioners' counsel.
4. The father of the petitioners filed declaration showing an extent of 4.7947 standard holdings in excess of ceiling area. The same was accepted by original authority as well as appellate authority. In pursuance thereof, the original declarant also surrendered the land to the Government in 1997. Section 4-A was inserted by A.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1977 but the provision was given retrospective effect from 1-1-1975 conferring a benefit to the major sons of the declarant. Though the Amendment Act, 1977 came into force, the petitioners did not move seeking the benefit of Section 4-A of the Act. They filed the application purportedly under Section 4-A of the Act only in June, 1991 after lapse of fourteen years seeking to re-open the proceedings before the original Tribunal. The same was refused. The appeal filed by the petitioners was no doubt allowed but the contention of the petitioners that they are major sons entitled for the benefit of Section 4-A of the Act was not accepted. The matter was remanded to original Tribunal again by order, dated 30-3-1998 in L.R.A. No. 46 of 1994. By reading the said order, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the matter was remitted to the lower Tribunal only to decide the entitlement under Section 4-A of the Act and not for other things. The entire matter or the application filed by the petitioners under Section 4-A of the Act was remanded for fresh consideration to the authority leaving open to the question at large.
5. It becomes clear by referring to the following from the order of the appellate Tribunal, dated 30-3-1998, in L.R.A. No. 46 of 1994.. This is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to primary tribunal to enquire afresh with regard to the claim of the appellants that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 4(A) land equivalent to one standard holding each and if the appellants are entitled whether they are also entitled to restoration of possession of the land to the extent of one standard holding each and such land can be reverted back to the appellants. With the above direction the matter is remanded back to the Primary Tribunal and the Primary Tribunal before commencing enquiry issue notice to the parties and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of file and relevant records from this Court.
6. It is nextly contended that, being major sons as on the date of coming into force of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to one standard holding each as per Section 4-A of the Act. This submission is devoid of any merit. The term 'family unit' is defined in Section 3(f) as under.
(f) 'family unit' means-
(i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses such individual, the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters, if any;
(ii) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters;
(iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not; and
(iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters.
Explanation:- Where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring, if any, shall also be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor son is a member;
7. In simple terms, in a nuclear family, the father, mother, minor married and unmarried sons, and unmarried minor daughters form 'family unit'. If such family has major son as on the notified date i.e., 1-1-1975, [as per Section 3(m) read with Section 1(3),] such major son cannot be included in the 'family unit' when Section 4-A was not on the statute books. Section 4 is to the effect that the ceiling area in the case of 'family unit' consisting of not more than five members shall be one standard holding and in the case of 'family unit' consisting of more than five members, additional extent of one-fifth of one standard holding for every such member in excess of five, can be claimed. If any person does not fit into definition of 'family unit' as defined in Section 3(f) of the Act, such person can claim an extent of land equal to one standard holding. When the Act was enacted, there was a vacuum regarding the claim of the major son in the 'family unit'. Therefore, the Act was amended by A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 (Act 10 of 1977) with retrospective effect. Section 4-A reads as under.
4-A. Increase of ceiling area in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anything in Section 4, where an individual or an individual who is a member of a family unit, has one or more major sons any such major son either by himself or together with other members of the family unit of which he is a member, holds no land or holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then, the ceiling area, in the case of the said individual or the family unit of which the said individual is a member computed in accordance with Section 4, shall be increased in respect of each such major son by an extent of land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such major son or the family unit of which he is a member, or as the case may be, by the extent of land by which the land held by such major son or the family unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiling area.
8. An analysis of the above provision would show that if an individual who is a member of the family unit has one or more major sons, the ceiling area shall be increased in respect of such major son or sons. How much extent? The provision lays down that in such an event the major son should hold no land or even if he holds lands such holding should be less than the ceiling area. In case the major son holds land equal to or more than ceiling area, Section 4-A of the Act has no application. Secondly, if the major son holds an extent of land less than ceiling area, by reason of Section 4-A of the Act, he would be entitled to such an extent of land, which falls short of the ceiling area. There are two conditions precedent for operation of Section 4-A. As on the notified date, the sons of an individual, who is a member of the family unit, must be major sons and such major sons should not own any land or should be owning land in an extent of less than ceiling area.
9. In a case where the proceedings under the Act have become final and the declarant has surrendered the excess agricultural holding to the Government, is it permissible for the sons to file an application after long lapse of about thirteen years? Rule 16(5) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for short, the Rules) enables the original Tribunal to rectify arithmetic or clerical mistakes. In case, the declarant has referred to the members of the 'family unit' and also major sons, it may be possible to hold that notwithstanding such surrender, an application would still lie under Rule 16(5) of the Rules for rectification of the proceedings in the light of Section 4-A of the Act. In case, the original declarant has not referred to the presence or availability of major sons in the family unit, it is doubtful whether such major sons can file an application after long lapse of thirteen years. Be it noted, in this case, the petitioners filed the application purportedly under Section 4-A of the Act on 11 -6-1991, whereas by that time, the land surrendered by the original declarant Mohammed Mirza was already distributed to the landless and poor persons. The application filed by the petitioners was, therefore, suffers from delay and laches. A reference to M. Prabhakar Reddy v. Narsingoju Venkataiah 1994 (1) ALT 41 (NRC) : 1994 (1) An.W.R 173 : 1994 (1) APLJ 435 (HC) would show the proceedings which are long settled should not be re-opened after long time as otherwise the same would defeat the object of the Legislature.
10. Further, as contended before the Appellate Tribunal, Mohammed Mirza, the father of the petitioners, did not even mention the names of the petitioners in the declaration and certainly this would throw doubt on the claim of the petitioners. Further more, going by the age, they have shown in the cause title to the civil revision petition, they were minors as on 1 -1 -1975, i.e., the Act came into force, and therefore Section 4-A of the Act has no application.
11. The civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and the petitioners have failed to show any error in the impugned order. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.