SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point in thto Revision is whether it would be open to the petitioner herein to agitate against the determination with regard to certain land in respect of its classification made earlier both by the primary tribunal and as confirmed by the appellate tribunal and while confirming the appellate tribunal remanded the matter back to the primary tribunal on points other than the one agitated regarding the classification, without taking the matter in revision to this court in the first instance Itself.

(2.) The case is, the revisionist herein who is the land-holder, filed declaration showing inter alia S No. 565/2 and 564/2 which are admittedly registered, as dry and included in the 'B' schedule of the L.G.O. The primary tribunal classified the same as double crop wet instead of single crop wet. On appeal, the said classification also was confirmed. However, the appellate tribunal for the purpose of due determination in respect of points other than there two lurvey numbers, remanded the matter back to the primary tribunal. Aggrieved against that, appeal wai preferred to the appellate tribunal and since the appellate tribunal did not agree with him, he came up in revision. If may, however, be stated that on remand this point with regard to Classification of theie two survey numbers neither was argued, not could it be argued. There was no revision as against the remand order made by the appellate tribunal. For the first time now on second round by way of a revision in this Court, the very point determined earlier and which became final by the appellate tribunal's decision, it sought to be agitated. It is in thit format of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Poornaiah contends while relying on the decisions 10 Kshitish Chandra vs. Commr. Of Ranchi and Bommakori Papaiah vs. State Of A P. that it ii certainly competent for this court to entertain the point raised herein, though oa the remand order made by the appellate tribunal revision was not filed against at that time. The Supreme Court in Kshitish Chndra vs Commr. Of Ranchi.

(3.) In the light of the decison of the Supreme Court referred to above, by which I am bound, I hold that it is open to this Court in revision for the first time to entertain a point with regard to which on an earlier occasion the matter became final at the appellate tribunal stage, as the said order of the appellate tribunal was not a final one, but was in the nature of interlocutory order, as the case had been remanded to the primary Tribunal. If that is so. the order under revision ii erroneous and the same is set aside by holding that these two survey numbers, which are admittedly registered ts dry and included in the 'B' schedule, will have to be classified as single cropdwet only in the light of several decisions of this Court.