Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tiyyali Kavi Chandra Sarma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.320 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
S.
DATE ORDER
No
1. 08.01.2024 RC, J
W.P.No.320 of 2024
Notice before admission.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue
Department takes notice on behalf of the
respondents and sought time to get instructions.
Post on 22.01.2024 in the Motion List.
______
RC, J
W.P.No.01 of 2024
Heard
Dispensed with for the present.
______
RC, J
Heard Sri M.V.S.Anil Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in
elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit
contended that, the Land Reforms Tribunal and
Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam earlier
passed an order dated 04.05.2013 in LCC Nos.516,
517, 519 and 524 of 1975 AKP/Dt.04.05.2013
allowing the claim petition filed by the Andhra
Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board and granted status
quo in respect of lands in survey Nos.56/1 and 56/2
of Aganampudi village. After lapse of ten years, the
Tribunal reviewed its own order and passed the
impugned order dated 09.10.2023, though the
petitioners herein categorically raised a ground in
the counter that the Tribunal has no authority to
review or recall its own order and there is no
provision made in the Act for reopening of the cases
once disposed of by the Land Reforms Tribunal. In
spite of raising such ground, the authority has
recalled its own order. In support of his contention,
the petitioners relied on the judgment of the High
court of Judicature, Hyderabad in Machiraju
RamaKrishna Paramahamsa v. the State of
Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
He further submitted that under the guise of
the impugned order, the authorities are
contemplating to alienate the property in survey
Nos.56 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.322 Revenue
(Lands.I) Department, dated 19.07.2023. If the
same is allowed to continue, it affects the rights of
the petitioners. As such, prayed to pass appropriate
orders protecting the interest of the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue Department
sought time to get instructions.
Perused the record.
The Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue
Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam has passed order
dated 04.05.2013 in LCC Nos.516, 517, 519 and
524 of 1975 AKP/Dt.04.05.2013 and thereby
allowed the Claim Petition filed by the Andhra
Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad
however, the same shall be subject to the outcome
of the Writ Appeal No.218 of 2008 pending before
this Court and till then, status quo should be
maintained on the lands covered by survey No.56/1
and 56/2 of Aganampudi village of Gajuwaka
Mandal. The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that, the Writ Appeal which was
referred in the proceedings dated 04.05.2013 was
dismissed. Pursuant to the same, basing on a
Memo issued by A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board in
BYB/C/31/99-3 dated 29.11.1999, the land in survey
Nos.56/A and 56/B to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents
each was left to the petitioners' grandfathers and
accordingly issued Gazettle Notification dated
13.04.2000 with regard to Bhoodan lands,
Aganampudi village, in which the petitioners'
grandfathers got Ac.3.00 cents each totaling to
Ac.9.00 cents and now the petitioners, who are their
grandsons are entitled for the said lands. Now, after
lapse of 10 years time, the Land Reforms Tribunal
and Revenue Divisional Officer has recalled its own
order dated 04.05.2013.
In Machiraju RamaKrishna Paramahamsa's
case, it is held that:
6. In the decision in P.N.Thakershi v.
Pradyumna Singhji (AIR 1970 SC 1273) the Supreme
Court has held that the power to review is not an
inherent power. It must be conferred by Law either
specifically or by necessary implication. There is
provision in the Act from which it can be gathered
that the Tribunals under the Act can review their
nd
own orders when there is no power of review the 2
respondent Tribunal could not have validly
reopened the case and passed fresh orders.
In view of the above discussion, prima facie, a
point for consideration has been made out by the
petitioners, for which a detailed counter is required
to be invited. In the meantime, if the order impugned
is allowed, as rightly contended by learned counsel
for the petitioners, it affects the rights of the
petitioners. As such, this Court is inclined to pass
the following interim order:
There shall be stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the order passed in
LCC No.516, 517, 519 and 524 of 1975
AKP dated 09.10.2023 by the Land Reforms
Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer,
pending further orders.
______
RC, J
MP
