ORDER
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order dated 13-7-2001 passed in LRA Nos. 3 and 4 of 1997 on the file of Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. C.R.P. No. 4705 of 2001 is filed against the order passed in L.R.A. No. 4/97 and C.R.P. No. 4706 of 2001 is filed against the order passed in L.R.A.No. 3/97 on the file of Chairman, LRAT-cum-ni Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
2. J. Vinaya wife of the declarant/J Surender Rao is the petitioner in both the revisions.
3. Facts of the case in brief giving rise to filing of these revisions are as follows:
J. Surender Rao/declarant in C.C.No. P/ 2811/75 dated 31-5-1982 was found to be holding excess land to the extent of 0.0887 SH. The declarant surrendered lands in S.Nos. 106, 286 and 67 admeasuring Ac.3-60 cents equivalent to 0.0887 SH. The LRT did not accept the surrender of the said lands as they were under acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the declarant proposed to surrender S.Nos,19 and 76. The Tribunal accepted the surrender of S.Nos. 19 and 76 admeasuring Ac.4-33 cents equivalent to 0.0887 SH by order dated 20-10-1990. On a note No. B1/10331/87 dated 26-10-1990 given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Tribunal passed order dated 12-11-1990 cancelling the acceptance of surrender of land bearing Sy.Nos. 19 and 76. The Tribunal suo motu selected S.No. 8 admeasuring Ac.2-53 cents equivalent to 0.0562 SH and passed order accepting surrender of the same on 30-11-1990. On 11-12-1990 the occupants of S.No. 8 have submitted a petition and requested for dropping the proceedings of acceptance of surrender of land bearing S.No. 8 towards excess holding of the declarant. The Joint Collector inspected the land on 28-3-1999 and permitted the occupants to dismantle the structures and transport them to the newly rehabilitated place. The Joint Collector permitted Singareni Colleries to extend its mining activity in S.No. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 12-11-1990 cancelling the earlier order dated 20-10-1990 accepting the surrender of lands in S.Nos. 19 and 76, the wife of the declarant filed W.P. No. 17083 of 1990. She also filed W.P. No. 1597/91 questioning the order of the Tribunal dated 30-11-1997 with regard to suo motu selection of land in S.No. 8 admeasuring Ac.2-53 cents equivalent to 0.0562 SH. The occupants of S.No. 8 filed W.P. No. 14897 of 1990 seeking a direction to the Government and the General Manager, Singareni Colleries to pass award and to pay compensation for the land and the houses in S.No. 8 admeasuring Ac.2-21 guntas. They also filed W.P. No. 15938 of 1990 to declare the action of the State in initiating the withdrawal proceedings of the acquisition of land in S.No. 8 as illegal and arbitrary. They also sought for a direction to the State to pass awards and to pay compensation relating to land in S.No. 8 to an extent of Ac.2-21 guntas. A common order came to be passed in all the writ petitions by this Court on 11.9.1995. Under the common order, W.P. Nos. 14897/90, 15938/90 and 17083/90 came to be dismissed and W.P. No. 1597/91 came to be allowed. The suo motu selection towards excess holding of the declarant has been set aside. I feel it apposite to refer the relevant portion of the common order passed in the writ petition which is thus:
'............Under Sub-section (5) read with Rule 7(3), the Tribunal can refuse to accept the surrender of land offered by the declarant and ask the declarant to surrender any other land in lieu thereof, after serving notice in Form VII. The Tribunal shall also publish notice in Form VIII before passing final order, publishing the particulars of lands proposed to be surrendered or selected and consider objections received, if any. Thus, from the scheme of Section 10 and Rule 7, it is obvious that whenever the Tribunal refuses to accept the surrender of the lands proposed by the declarant, it has to serve notice in Form VII and after making necessary enquiry pass order directing the declarant to surrender particular land. Both in the case of accepting the surrender proposed by the declarant and in the case of Tribunal selecting land to be surrendered, notice in Form VIII is a must, inviting objections from persons interested. When the Tribunal corrects any mistake arising out of any accidental error or omission in its earlier order. Hence, either under Section 10(3) or 10(4) or 10(5), it amounts to passing fresh order under Section 10(3) or 10(4) or 10(5) as the case may be. Thus, it has to give notice to declarant before correcting any mistake under Rule 16(5)(b). Apart from the rule, even on the principles of natural justice, as the rectification order affects the declarant, the Tribunal has to give notice.
As I am setting aside the impugned order on the ground that no notice was issued to the declarant, the questions whether the first respondent has jurisdiction to invoke Rule 16(5)(b) and whether it has even otherwise power to reopen the order passed by it earlier are left open. It is open to urge all pleas available to her before the Land Reforms Tribunal. As the matter is very old, I direct the Land Reforms Tribunal to finalise the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
After the disposal of the writ petitions, the Tribunal took up the matter, heard Counsel for the petitioner and passed order on 21.2.1997 accepting the surrender of Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 to an extent of Ac.4-53 cents and consequently directed the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA), General Manager (P) S.C.Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani to deposit the compensation amount to the extent of Ac.4-53 cents to the Government account. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as follows:
'In the instant case the material fact is that by the time the surrender proceedings were started i.e., by 20-10-1990 entire lands held by the declarant were acquired by the S.C.Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani except 1-00 acre land in Sy.No. 8 and it is evident from the award No. 16/91 (Proc.No. B/17/88) dated 6-11-1991 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar of L.A. Unit S.C.Co., Godavarikhani that the entire land in Sy.No. 8 extent 2-21 including houses have been acquired by the S.C.Co., and no land is left over to the declarant to surrender as the entire lands were acquired by the S.C.Co., during the years 1988 to 1991. This Tribunal has passed final orders on 31-8-1992 in C.C. No. P/2811/75, declaring the declarant to surrender land to an extent of 0.0887 under Section 10(1) of the Act. The acquisition of land by L.A.O. took place in 1988 to 1991 i.e., after the notified date of 1-7-1975.
In the result, there is no other alternate left to this Tribunal to conform the acceptance orders issued in C.C.No. P/2311/75, dated 20-10-1990 in respect of Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 to an extent of 4-53 cents which were surrendered by the declarant as all other lands were acquired by the S.C.Co. Since there is no land exists in Sy.Nos. 19 and 76. Hence, this Tribunal directs the LAO and Special Deputy Collector (LA) S.C.Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani to deposit the Land Acquisition compensation amount to an extent of 4-53 cents to the Government account, as the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act prevails over the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 25 of the A.P.L.R. (COAH) Act, 1973 however, the declarant is eligible for the compensation under Land Ceiling Act of 1973.'
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of LRT, the State preferred LRA No. 3/97 and the Singareni Colleries Limited preferred L.R.A.No. 4/97. Learned Tribunal by common judgment dated 13.7.2001 allowed both the appeals and set aside the direction of the Tribunal to the appellant to deposit the compensation amount to an extent of Ac.4-53 cents to the Government account. Questioning the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed in LRA Nos. 3 and 4 of 1997, the petitioner who is the wife of the declarant has filed these two revisions.
5. Since these two revisions arise out of the order passed in C.C.P./2811/75, they are being disposed of by this common order.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal having accepted the surrender of lands bearing Nos. 19 and 76 to the extent of Ac.4-33 cents equivalent to 0.0887 by order dated 20-10-1990 is not empowered to pass order dated 12-11-1990 cancelling the order of acceptance of surrender of the aforesaid lands. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal is not empowered to select land in S.No. 8 suo motu towards excess holding of the declarant/ J.Surender Rao. It is further contended by him that the appellate Tribunal is not justified in observing that the primary Tribunal should have accepted the surrender of lands in S.No. 8 of Nagapally Village. He nextly contends that Singareni Colleries Company Limited has no locus standi to file L.R.A. No. 4/87 questioning the orders of the Tribunal dated 21-2-1997 passed in C.C.P.2811/75. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) C. Nagavasavaiah v. J.V.S. Mahaswami, 1971 (2) ALT (28) 65.
(2) D. Subbaraidu v. District Social Welfare Officer, 1979 (2) APLJ 146.
(3) M.R. Paramahamsa v. State of A.P., 1978(1) ALT 470.
(4) N. Chinan Basavaiah v. State of A.P., 1981 (2) An WR 263.
(5) Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2003 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 10.
(6) Bheemappa v. Commr. Land Revenue, 1983 (2) ALT (AP).
In the first cited decision a Division Bench of our High Court held that where the amount has been paid to a party before adjudication of the claims of the contesting parties, whatever be the reason for such payment, the Court has power to order that the money so paid out be brought to the Court so that the requirements of Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act may be satisfied and to do justice. If the Court has inherent powers to direct the deposit of the amount wrongfully paid out to the petitioner, it has equally the power to compel compliance with its order; as otherwise, it would defeat the very purpose or object of the inherent power vested in the Court under Section 151 CPC. In the second cited decision, a Division Bench of our High Court held that compulsory acquisition of land does not constitute a sale by person holding the land nor does it amount to a lease gift exchange settlement, surrender usufructuary mortgage by the person holding the land and that it is not an alienation otherwise by the person having interest in the land. In the third cited decision it has been held by our High Court that the power of review is not an inherent power and it must be referable by a statute. It is further held that there is no provision in the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 from which it can be gathered that the Tribunals under the Act can review their own orders. In the fourth cited decision it has been held by our High Court that under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 a person having substantial interest alone is permitted to appear and participate in the proceedings at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. In the fifth cited decision, the Supreme Court held that when the statute proceeds to acquire land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the assumption that it belongs to a particular person the award cannot be called in question by the State seeking a reference under Section 30 of the Act on the premise that the lands do not belong to the person from whom it was purportedly acquired and was a land owned by a State having vested in it, consequent upon abolition of proprietary rights, much before acquisition. In the sixth cited decision, it has been held by our High Court that the provisions under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 8 of 1317 Fasli can be exercised only in respect of orders or decisions passed or proceedings taken under the very Act 8 of 1317 Fasli, or any other Act which was made applicable to the said provisions of Act 8 of 1317 Fasli.
7. Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in C.R.P. No. 4705 of 2001 contends that the husband of the petitioner who is the declarant in C.C. No. P.2811/75 having accepted the compensation for acquisition of the lands in S.Nos. 19 and 76 is not justified in surrendering the same lands towards his excess holding to the Government. It is also contended by him that the respondent being the beneficiaries for whose benefit the land in question has been acquired is an aggrieved party and therefore it is entitled to question the order dated 21.2.1997 passed in C.C.P.2811/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar and that the appellate authority considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and upheld the cancellation of the orders of acceptance of surrender of lands in S.Nos. 19 and 76 by the declarant towards his excess holdings. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, : AIR1995SC724 . It has been held in the cited decision that Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
8. The facts which are not in dispute are: J. Surender Rao/declarant in C.C.P.2811/75 was found to be holding excess land to the extent of 0.0887 SH as per order dated 31-5-1982. He surrendered the lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76 to the extent of Ac.4-33 cents equivalent to 0.0887 SH. The Tribunal accepted the surrender of the lands by order dated 20-10-1990. The Government acquired the lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76 by award dated 24.1.1987 and paid compensation to the land owners. J.Surender Rao/declarant and other landowners got the matter referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Civil Court took the reference on file as O.P. No. 107/87. The matter came to be compromised and accordingly Civil Court passed decree in terms of the compromise. As per the terms of the compromise, the compensation is enhanced per acre from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 13,250/- for dry lands and from Rs. 16,000/- to Rs. 18,500/- for wet lands and from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 13,250/- for irrigated dry. The market value of the structures with the house and huts acquired has been enhanced to 23 per cent over and above the market value awarded by the LAO. J.Surender Rao/declarant surrendered the lands in S.Nos. 19 and 76 towards his excess holdings on 23-4-1988. By that date, the Singareni Colleries Company Limited took possession of the lands and LAO passed award and the declarant received the compensation. The Land Reforms Tribunal by order dated 20-10-1990 accepted the surrender of lands. Acceptance of Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 was cancelled by the Tribunal on 12.11.1990. The Tribunal suo motu selected S.No. 8 admeasuring Ac.2-53 cents equivalent to 0.562 SH by order dated 30-11-1990. The wife of the declarant filed WP No. 17083/90 questioning the cancellation of acceptance of surrender of lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76, and W.P.No. 1597/91 questioning the suo motu selection of S.No. 8 towards excess holding of the declarant. This Court by order dated 11.9.1995 dismissed W.P.No. 17083 of 1990 and allowed W.P.No. 1597/91. As per the orders passed in W.P. No. 1597/91, the questions whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to invoke Rule 16(5)(b) and whether it has even otherwise power to reopen the order passed by it earlier are left open. The petitioner was permitted to urge all the pleas available to her before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the material on record and on hearing Counsel for the petitioner confirmed the acceptance order passed in C.C.P.2811/ 75 dated 20-10-1990 in respect of S.Nos. 19 and 76 to an extent of Ac.4-53 cents and directed the LAO and Special Deputy Collector, LA, S.C.C.Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani to deposit the land acquisition amounts as the provisions of Land Ceiling Act prevails over the L.A.Act under Section 28 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Tribunal clarified that the declarant is eligible for compensation under the Land Ceiling Act, 1973. Aggrieved by the order of Land Reforms Tribunal, the Singareni Colleries filed L.R.A. No. 4/87 and whereas the State filed L.R.A. No. 3/87 on the file of Chairman, LRAT-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal set aside the order dated 21-2-1997 passed by the Tribunal in C.C.CP.2811/75. I feel it apposite to refer the relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and it is thus:
'11. No doubt on considering the contentions raised by the Singareni Colleries Company Limited as appellant in LRA No. 4/97 and also the contentions raised by the State in this Appeal 9 LRA No. 3/97), aggrieving with the impugned orders dated 21-2-1997 by the Lower Tribunal, it is noticed by this Court that Land Reforms Tribunal previously refused to accept the said lands on the ground that the lands were already acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the appellant company and the Lower Tribunal passed award on 24-1-1987 and the husband of the respondent No. 2 has received the said compensation for the said lands to a tune of Rs. 1,80,579-30 paise on 9-2-1987. Since then, the lands in Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 of Nagapalli Village are under the ownership and possession of the Appellant/III party and the lands which respondent No. 2 has no right title ownership, hence they cannot be surrendered by the respondent No. 2.
12. So also the Tribunal should have accepted the surrender of land in Sy.No. 8 of Nagapalli Village, since the amount of compensation was not paid to the persons interested i.e., awardees though the award of Rs. 14,80,600/- was passed as per the interim orders by the Hon'ble High Court dated 18-3-1991 in W.P. No. 14897/1990. In the said writ petition the Hon'ble High Court declared that the Land Acquisition proceedings are null and void. The Tribunal had knowledge of ownership and possession of the lands covered under Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 by the appellant company since 1987 but not issued any notice passing impugned orders, though serving of notice is mandatory.
13. In view of the decision reported in1978(2) ALT 6 (between K.Buchi Reddy v.State of AP) the Lower Tribunal failed togive notice to the company who is havingownership and possession over thelands bearing Nos. 19 and 76. Thus, it isheld that there is grave violation of principlesof natural justice.
14. In view of the non-compliance of mandatory provisions issuing of notice the impugned orders under appeal is set aside as those lands covered under S.Nos. 19 and 76 are under the ownership of the appellant company and those lands cannot be surrendered by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has no right or ownership over them. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside.
Land Reforms Appeal Number 3 of 1997:
15. The contentions of the respondent in this appeal are not accepted in view of the finding in LRA.No. 4/97.
The lands under Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 become non-agricultural lands on acquisition by the appellant company and it is held that the Lower Tribunal is not empowered to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation amount to the Government account as the Land Acquisition Officer had already passed award and deposited compensation in Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 in award No. 8/2218/82 dated 24-1-1987 itself to the husband of Respondent No. 3. Hence, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be directed to deposit the amount into the Government account.
16. In view of the foregoing discussions, this appeal is allowed quashing the direction of Lower Tribunal to deposit the compensation amount.'
9. The Appellate Tribunal held that the declarant, cannot surrender the lands in S.Nos. 19 and 76 since they were already acquired by the Government under award dated 24-1-1987 and the third party i.e., Singareni Colleries Company Limited was put in possession of the same by the date of acceptance of surrender of lands. The Appellate Tribunal further held that neither the Singareni Colleries nor the LAO can be directed to deposit the compensation which was already paid to the declarant.
10. Aggrieved by the order of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal passed in L.R.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 1997, the petitioner/ wife of the declarant has filed these revision petitions. The questions that arise for determination in these revision petitions are :
(1) Whether the Tribunal has power of review of its order dated 20-10-1990 regarding the acceptance of surrender of lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76.
(2) Whether the declarant is justified in surrendering the lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76 towards excess holdings is justified in refusing.
(3) Whether Singareni Colleries Company Limited has locus standi to question the surrender of lands in S.Nos. 19 and 76 by the declarant towards his excess holding.
11. Points 1, 2 and 3 : At the cost of repetition I may state that the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 of the declarant for the benefit of Singareni Colleries Limited under an award dated 24-1-1987. Possession of the lands was delivered to Singareni Colleries by the date of passing of the award. The declarant received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and got. the matter referred to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pending the matter in the Civil Court, the claimants and the beneficiary got the matter settled in Lok Adalat and decree came to be passed in O.P, No. 107/87 in terms of the compromise on 23.2.1991. It appears the declarant received the enhanced compensation for the lands acquired for the benefit of Singareni Colleries Limited. It has been held by the Supreme Court in U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Gyan Devi, : AIR1995SC724 , that Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act confers right on local authority for whom land is being acquired to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Tribunal by order dated 21.2.1997 directed the Singareni Colleries and the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation to the Government account. When Singareni Colleries had already deposited the compensation which the declarant withdrew, the question of directing Singareni Colleries to deposit the compensation once again would not arise. In that view of the matter, the Singareni Colleries is entitled to question the order of the Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Tribunal with regard to the direction to Singareni Colleries and the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation amount. In my opinion, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is fully justified and it does not warrant any interference by this Court in these revisions.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has no power to review the order of acceptance dated 20-10-1990 with regard to surrender of lands in Sy.Nos. 19 and 76 admeasuring Ac.4-33 cents equivalent to 0.0887 SH. He placed reliance on the decision of our High Court in M.R.Paramahamsa v. State of A.P., cited wherein it is held that the power of review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by a statute. A question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of our High Court in Digambar Rao and Anr. v. Government of A.P., : 2001(6)ALD696 (FB), whether the authorities under A.P. Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 have the power of review despite the fact that there is no specific provision dealing with the said power of review under the Act. It has been held by the Full Bench of our High Court in the above cited decision that power of review can be classified into two groups-procedural review and substantial review. Every Court or Tribunal has inherent powers, so far as the procedural review is concerned, for example in a case where an order has been passed by a Court without compliance of principles of natural justice, the Court may recall such an order. It is well settled principle of law that an order obtained by practising fraud upon the Court/Tribunal would be a nullity. No litigant can keep an advantage gained out of an order, which has been obtained by practising fraud upon the Court. Whenever it is brought to the notice of the Court that a litigant has obtained an order by practising fraud upon it, then the Court is entitled, to recall such an order passed by it. In this context, it is apt to refer to a well known maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit meaning 'act of the Court should prejudice no one'. The Court/Tribunal must be held to have the power to recall its earlier order, which was obtained by practising fraud upon the Court, in order to do justice to the parties.
13. It is manifest from the record that the declarant by the date of surrender of lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76 has received the compensation payable to the said lands under Land Acquisition Act. Surrendering the self same lands definitely amounts to playing fraud by the declarant. Much argument has been advanced by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to re-deposit the entire compensation received by the declarant in respect of S.Nos. 19 and 76. When once the declarant played fraud on the Tribunal and surrendered the lands for which he has already received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, the offer of returning of the entire compensation by the petitioner who is the wife of the declarant at this stage cannot be accepted. The appellate Tribunal considered the material brought on record in right perspective and held that the declarant has no right to surrender the lands bearing S.Nos. 19 and 76 since the Singareni Colleries Limited had already acquired rights over the lands and came into possession of the same. The only alternative left to the petitioner is to surrender the lands for which the declarant i.e., her husband has not received the compensation under L.A.Act.
14. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions fail and they are hereby dismissed confirming the order dated 13-7-2001 passed in L.R.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1997 on the file of Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. No costs.