Judgment:
ORDER
1. These two revisions-one filed by the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and the other filed by the State are directed against the self same order dated 28-11-1994 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada. Hence, they can be disposed of together.
2. One Manyam Viswandha Rao filed a declaration under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) in respect of his holding. The Land Reforms Tribunal originally passed an order under Section 9 of the Act on 4-8-1976 determining that the family unit of Viswanadha Rao holds land equivalent to 1.4723 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date. The matter was carried in appeal to the appellate Tribunal in LRA No.976 of 1996 and revision to the High Court in CRP No.2099 of 1983. After disposal of the revision by the High Court on 2-7-1987 Special Leave Petition No.6943 of 1988 was filed in the Supreme Court which was dismissed. After disposal of the above proceedings, the Land Reforms Tribunal issued a notice in Form No.6 on 12-8-1993 calling upon the legal representatives of the deceased declarant to surrender land to the extent of 1.4123 standard holding, which was found to be the surplus land held by them, within fifteen days. Questioning the said notice, the wife and son of the declarant filed LRA No.137 of 1993 before the AppellateTribunal. Three points were raised before the Appellate Tribunal namely, (1) issuing a Notice under Form No.6 without issuing a revised order under Section 9 of the Act is bad; (2) classification of certain lands in Dosakayalapadu, Madhurapudi and Torredu is wrong and the said lands ought to have been classified as dry lands and not as wet lands and (3) an extent of Ac.20.67 cents of and in Pandavulapalli village is liable to be excluded from computation on the ground that it is not agricultural land and same is covered by quarry.
3. So far as the first point is concerned the Appellate Tribunal observed that after disposal of the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court no consequential order under Section 9 of the Act appears to have been passed and the impugned notice was issued on the basis of the order dated 8-9-1978 and no schedule is attached to the impugned notice. The appellate Tribunal felt that in the absence of the schedule in the prescribed form, the appellants would be at a disadvantage as the surplus held by the family varied from time to time. The Appellate Tribunal therefore directed the Primary Tribunal to issue a revised order under Section 9 of the Act enclosing the schedule.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling submits that as per the said direction of the Appellate Tribunal, the Primary Tribunal subsequently issued a revised order along with the schedule in the prescribed form and as such the said point no longer survive.
5. The Appellate Tribunal partly upheld the point No.2 raised by the appellants holding that the lands bearing S. Nos.296/2 and 296/3 of Madhurapudi Village should be classified as dry lands and rejected the contention of the appellants, in regard to the other survey numbers mentioned by them. The Appellate Tribunalalso rejected point No.3 holding that the appellants failed to produce any material to substantiate the claim that an extent Ac.20.67 cents in Pandavulapatli village is covered by quarry and it is not agricultural land.
6. The wife and son of the declarant filed CRP No.26 of 1995 questioning that part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal which went against them. The State filed CRP SR No.27903 of 1995 contending that when once final determination of the holding under Section 9 of the Act is over, the declarant or his legal representatives cannot be permitted to raise any new points and the Appellate Tribunal erred in ordering re-classification of certain lands.
7. One of the daughters of the deceased declarant, namely, Tummati Suryakumari, filed CMP No.26952 of 1998 in CRP No.26 of 1995 seeking to implead herself as a party respondent in the Civil Revision Petition and claiming that a total extent of Ac.8.91 cents was given to her by the declarant towards Pasupu Kumkuma as per the family settlement arrived at in the year 1972 and that the said extent of land given to her has to be excluded from computation of the holding of the declarant. The State is opposing her claim denying the alleged family settlement and contending that in any case she cannot be permitted to putforward this belated claim at this stage, after the final determination under Section 9 of the Act is over.
8. It is settled legal position that after the holding is finally determined under Section 9 of the Act, it is not open to the declarant to raise any new points at the surrender stage which is in the nature of execution proceedings. In the instant case admittedly the final determination under Section 9 of the Act has been completed after the matter was taken up to the highest Court in the land. It is only after a notice in Form No.6 was served calling upon thelegal representatives of the deceased declarant to surrender the excess land, as finally determined that they have come up with various new points regarding wrong classification, alleged inclusion of quarry lands etc. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not open to the petitioners in CRP No.26 of 1995 to raise any further questions, either regarding classification of the lands or inclusion of lands in the holding. They cannot go behind the determination made under Section 9 of the Act.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, seeks to place reliance on Rule 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for short, the Rules) which provides that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the power, among other things, to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, either of its own motion or on the application of the parties. Sub-rule 7 of the said Rules further provides that any person other than a party who satisfies the Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal that he has substantial interest in the matter may at any time during the pendency of the proceedings, be permitted to appear and be heard and to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The daughter of the declarant who filed CMP No.26952 of 1998 in CRP No.26 of 1995 seeks to rely on this sub-rule.
10. Though as a general rule the declarant is not entitled to raise any new points after final determination of the holding under Section 9 of the Act, in the instant case the Appellate Tribunal on a perusal of Adangal extracts of S. Nos.296/2 and 296/3 of Madhurapudi village found that the said lands were kept Banjar for want of supply of water in fasli No.1378 and that in fasli No.1381 crops failed forwant of water and in 1382-Fasli crop was lost due to want of water and thus out of the six relevant faslies there was failure of crops in three faslies for want of adequate supply of water and as such the said lands have to be treated as dry lands only, but not as wet lands. When the material on record clearly showed that classification of these two survey numbers was erroneous, the Appellate Tribunal was fully justified in rectifying the said error having regard to Rule 16(5) of the Rules. The Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted on that score. So far as other lands are concerned, the Appellate Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the appellants in the absence of any material whatsoever to substantiate the same.
11. I do not therefore find any merit whatsoever in the two revisions and accordingly both the revisions are dismissed, but without costs.
12. Coming to CMP No.26952 of 1998 filed by the daughter of the declarant, I am of the view that she cannot be permitted to come forward with a new claim at this belated stage as the final determination of the holding under Section 9 of the Act is completed. I am afraid sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 of the Rules also cannot render any assistance to her as the said Rule clearly provides that a third person can be permitted to appear and be heard and to adduce evidence 'at any time during the pendency of the proceedings' only and not after the entire proceedings are completed and the final determination under Section 9 of the Act is made.
13. The CMP is accordingly dismissed.