DEEKONDA ANOOPKUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether it would be competent for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon a point sought to be raised for the first time on remand though the remand order did not pertain to the same, nor the point was agitated on the first round. The relevant facts in brief are: The revisionist herein on a declaration filed, claimed certain reliefs, Aggrieved by some, he preferred an appeal and not satisfied with the appellate order, went in revision. In the revision certain points were argued and the revisional Court remanded the matter to the primary Tribunal. It is at that stage for the first time the question was raised with regard to the classification of S. Nos. 271, 274, 275 and 278 of Dharmavaram village contending that they have been wrongly classified as wet lands instead of dry. Though the primary Tribunal rejected to entertain both on merits as well as on the ground that on remand it was not competent for the revisionist to agitate for the first time, but the Appellate Tribunal on the contrary held that though as per the decided cases of this Court the lands which are localised as irrigable dry and no water has been supplied nor any wet crop has been raised, shall have to be classified as dry only, nevertheless held that these survey numbers though will have to be classified as dry, but since this was not canvassed at the first instance but only sought to be agitated for the first time after remand, the revisionist is precluded from doing so, as it would not be com--petent for the Appellate Tribunal to entertain the same. Hence this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri N. Subba Reddy relied on certain decisions of this Court favouring this point. In B. Papaiah v. State of A. P., 1980 (1) AP LJ page 43 (SN) it has been held by Madhava Reddy, J. as under;

(3.) What becomes manifest from the above case law is that where there is a finality of the determination of the holding and thereafter when surrender proceedings are initiated, no fresh point shall be allowed to be agitated. But, however, where there is finality with regard to the adjudication of the declaration on its merits and if there is a remand order passed by the revision Court, for the first time a fresh point may be allowed to be agitated even though that point has not been agitated hitherto, nor covered by the remand order. I respectfully agree with the decision laid down by Madhaya Reddy, J., cited above. In the light of the above it is certainly competent for the Tribunals below to decide about the classification of the above enumerated survey numbers as to whether they have to be classified as wet or dry. Since there has been already an adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal and very rightly so in the light of the decisions of this Court, these survey numbers which are localised as irrigable dry and no wet crop has been raised, nor any Government source of water has been used, such lands will have to be classified as dry only. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the primary Tribunal for due recomputation by treating the aforesaid four survey numbers as dry.