BOMMAKORI PAPAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in L.R.A. NO.279/78. The declarant in C.C NO.2498/1/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal. Hyderabad, South Division is the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 22-2-77 the petitioner had preferred an appeal L R.A No 2063/77 to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. That appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the lower Tribunal for fresh computation of the holding as per the directions given in that order. On remand the primary Tribunal passed an order dated 24-10 78 computing the holding of the appellant afresh. Aggrieved by that order. he preferred LR.A.No. 279/78 in which the present order under revision is made. Before the Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No. 279/78 the petitioner raised the following three contentions. (1) That the family settlement dated 5.12.1954 ought to have been given effect; (2) That the extent of "pote Kharab" also ought to have been excluded; and (3) That an extent of Acs. 3-00 of land covered by public road is not "Land" within the meaning of the land and deserves to be excluded.

(2.) These contentions were rejected on the ground that the remand order dated 27-2-78 had become final and at the time when this remand order was made these points were not raised.

(3.) If these points were permitted to be raised and considered there can be no doubt that at least the land covered by road and the land recorded as "pote Kharab" cannot be treated as "land" within the meaning of the Act. Those extents would have to be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner. So also if the family settlement set up by the petitioner is proved only the lands that are allotted to him at that family settlement and after excluding such ot those lands which he had sold from the lands so allotted, could be computed in his holding. The Appellate Tribunal refused to go into those only on the ground that the remand order has become final. !t has therefore to be seen whether, having regard to the wording of the remand order, the petitioner is debarred from raising these contentions.