ORDER
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. These revision petitions have been preferred by the declarant in C.C. No. 2242/ALG/75 of the Sub-Collector, Nandyal, against the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, dated 26.7.1999, in L.R.A. Nos.34 of 1994 and 35 of 1994. The declarant was a surplus holder, therefore, he surrendered certain lands and they were assigned to the respondents in both these revision petitions prior to 30.4.1977 and the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the same.
2. Subsequently, on 1.2.1980 the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the declarant covered by L.R.A. No. 123 of ,1979, holding him as a non-surplus holder. The declarant filed an application on 28.6.1993 for redelivery of the surrendered lands. Therefore, on 16.9.1993, the sub-Collector, Nandyal, passed an order, directing the restoration of the lands, which were assigned to the respondents. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 16.9.1993 preferred L.R.A. No. 34 of 1994 and 35 of 1994 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals, by observing that the declarant kept quite for more than 12 years without claiming redelivery of the lands in pursuance of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and as the appellants are in possession of the lands for more than 12 years, the declarant is not entitled to redelivery of the lands. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in both the appeals, preferred these revisions questioning the validity and legality of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the declarant is entitled to retransfer of the land vested in the Government under Rule 10-A of the Act and he drew the attention of this Court to the provision covered by Rule 10-A(5) which reads as follows:
'Rule 10-A(5): Where, as a result of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on an appeal filed under Section 20 or by the High Court on an application for revision filed under Section 21 of the Act, any land vested in the Government under Section 11 is to be retransferred to the person who surrendered such land, the Tribunal shall pass an order to the effect that the said person is entitled to transfer of such land and it shall specify the extent of such land and also the amount, if any, to be repaid by him to the Government in respect of that land and communicate the order to the Revenue Divisional Officer.'
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents while conceding that the procedure contemplated under Rule 10-A(5) is applicable in cases where the appeal was filed under Section 20 and when the declarant was held as a non-surplus holder, the land surrendered by the declarant has to be retransferred to him under Section 11 of the Act. But since the order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 4A of the Act, Rule 10-A(3) applies and on application of the said Rule the necessary order has to be passed by the Collector concerned and the order was passed by the Sub-Collector is not a valid one and it is liable to be set aside. Section 4-A of the Act reads as follows;
'Section 4-A: 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 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.'
5. Section 7 Clause (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Amendment Act 10 of 1977 reads as follows:
'(5) Where, as a result of the fresh determination of excess land or approval of fresh surrender of excess land or selection of the land to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, any land vested in the Government under Section 11 of the Principal Act is to be retransferred to the person who surrendered such land, the land shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, be re-transferred to such person on repayment of the amount paid to him by the Government in respect of that land, and where such land was allotted or transferred to any person in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the principal Act prior to the date, it shall be lawful for the District Collector to resume the land from the person to whom the land is so allotted or transferred and in lieu thereof allot or transfer to the allottee or transferee any other land vesting in the Government, subject to the provisions of Section 14 aforesaid:
Provided that where the District Collector considers that the resumption of such land is likely to cause undue hardship to the allottee or transferee thereof, he shall, subject to the approval of the Government, pay to the person, who is entitled to receive the amount in respect of the land under the principal Act, in lieu of retransferring the land, a sum equal to the amount that would have been payable for such land as if a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued for the acquisition of that land on the first day of January, 1975, after deducting the amount already paid to him in respect thereof.'
6. Since the land in this case was assigned to the respondents prior to 30.4.1977, Rule 10-A(3)(a) is applicable and it reads as follows:
'Rule 10-A(3)(a): In any case where the Revenue Divisional Officer has found that the land to be retransferred has been allotted or transferred to any person prior to the 30th April, 1977, he shall furnish a report of the case to the District Collector specifying the period during which such allottee or transferee has been in possession of the land and the extent to which such allottee or transferee has incurred any expenditure on making improvements to such land. On receipt of such report, the District Collector shall determine whether or not such land should be resumed from the allottee or transferee. Where the District Collector determines that such land should be so resumed, he shall direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to resume possession of the land from transferee or allottee for being retransferred to the person who surrendered such land. On such direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall resume possession of the land and take action in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (2):
Provided that no possession of the land shall be resumed until after seasonal crop on the land raised by the transferee is harvested by him.'
7. As per the above Rule when the land was found transferred in favour of the assignees prior to 30.4.1977, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to furnish a report to the District Collector, specifying the period during which such allottee has been in possession of the land by mentioning the extent of the land, the expenditure incurred by the assignee etc. On receipt of such report, the Collector shall determine whether such land should be resumed from the allottee to the declarant. In this case, the Sub-Collector passed the order for resumption on 16.9.1993, this order is not disclosing whether he passed this order in pursuance of the decision taken by the Collector. In the absence of such material it has to be concluded that the Sub-Collector passed the order and it is not in accordance with Rule 10-A(3)(a) of the Rules. Therefore, the order of the Sub-Collector dated 16.9.1993 is liable to be set aside.
8. The learned Counsel for the third respondent Sri E. Ayyap Reddy submitted that since there is a direction from the Tribunal that the land surrendered by the declarant shall be resumed to him, the procedure prescribed under Rule 10-A(6) has to be followed and as the Revenue Divisional Officer who is competent to pass order of retransfer of the land has passed the order, it is valid under law, therefore, the impugned order needs no interference.
9. This is a case which was reconsidered by the Land Reforms Tribunal, under Section 4A of the Act. The surplus land of the declarant was adjusted in the unit of his major son which had fallen short of one standard holding. It is revealing from the record that after acceptance of the surrender of the land, it was allotted to the respondents herein prior to 30th April, 1977. Therefore, it attracts Section 7(5) of the Amendment Act and Rule 10(A) (3) (a) of the Rules, regarding procedure to be followed for retransfer of the land allotted to the respondents. In view of the procedure expressly provided under the Act, as well as the Rules, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is sustainable. In M.V. Timma Reddy v. Special Tahsildar Land Reforms. Kurnool, 1995 (1) ALD 575 = 1995 (1) An.WR 484, Single Bench presided by Mr. Justice Lingarajarat held:
'that proviso to Section 7 Clause 5 of the Amendment Act of 1977 applies only to the cases of retransfer of surplus land in situation arising because of enlargement of ceiling area under the Amendment Act and not to the cases of re-transfer, arising due to reclassification of land as per order of Appellate Court and it is not applicable to all cases of re-transfer. The above decision rendered by this Court is also indicating that the provisions referred to above are meant to meet the contingency of reduction of the holding of the declarant by virtue of Section 4-A of the Act.'
10. This Court, therefore, comes to a conclusion that the Collector is the competent authority to pass appropriate orders on receipt of a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer as mentioned above.
11. Though the ground on which the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal is not correct, the revision is entitled to be allowed on the ground that the order was not passed by the competent authority as provided under the Rules.
12. In the light of the above rule position, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Sub-Collector, Nandyal, and the Sub-Collector, Nandyal, shall submit a detailed report regarding the date of assignment of the land, the persons to whom the land was assigned, the period during which they are in possession and enjoyment of the property the expenditure if any incurred by them for improvement of the land etc., and on receipt of such report along with the relevant record the Collector shall pass appropriate orders under Rule 10-A(3)(a) of the Rules.
13. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed, the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool, dated 26.7.1999, are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Sub-Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nandyal, to process the file for passing appropriate orders by the Collector as per Section 7(5) of the Amendment Act and Rule 10-A(3)(a) of the Rules. No order as to costs.