STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MUMMAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the State, under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), against order, dated 20.06.2002, made in I.A. No. 903 of 2001 in L.R.A. No. 8 of 1994 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District & Sessions Court, Nellore (LRAT) wherein the LRAT allowed the review petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'). The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision are as follows:

(2.) The LRAT allowed the IA by order dated 20.06.2002 holding that Rule 7(5) of the Rules is not considered by it earlier and that Rule has to be followed and directed the lower Tribunal to take possession of the extent which is in proportion to the extent of the land which was purchased and which is in possession of the 1st respondent out of the total lands sold away by the declarants to different alienees. Challenging the same, the State preferred this revision.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Ceiling/Arbitration appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the LRAT has no power of review, as neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder confer power of review on it. He further contended that the power of review should be specifically conferred by a statute, otherwise, the LRAT cannot exercise the power of review. He relied on the decisions of this Court in N. Buchamma and others V. Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Chittoor, 1996 1 ALT 420 and Manchiraju Ramakrishna Paramahamsa V. The State of A.P. rep. by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another, 1979 2 APLJ 50 wherein this Court by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in P.N. Thakershi V. Pradyumna Singhji, 1970 AIR(SC) 1273 held that the power of review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by Law either specifically or by necessary implication and that there is no provision in the Act from which it can be gathered that the Tribunals under the Act can review their own orders.