LALITHAMMAY Vs. SPECIAL TAHSLLDAR L R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool in L.R.A.No.20 of 1992. The dispute arises out of the declaration filed by one Smt. P.Parvathamma in the year 1975 under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. After due enquiry, it was determined that she held iand of 2.1652 S.Hs in excess of the ceiling area. When a notice directing her to surrender surplus land was issued she surrendered an extent of land equivalent to 1.1766 S.H. and the surrender was accepted by an order passed on 7-6-1978. She was yet to surrender 0.9886 S.H. While so, Parvathamma died in the year 1984. Her daughters then put forward a claim that certain lands were given to them towards 'Pasupukumkuma' and therefore those lands have to be excluded from the holding of the original declarant in which case the original declarant had to surrender only 0.1920 S.H. The Land Reforms Tribunal allowed the application filed by the daughters of the original declarant. The State preferred an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 28-2-89 allowed the appeal preferred by the State. The revision filed in the High Court was also dismissed. Subsequently, the present petitioner claiming to be the legal representative of late Paravathamma filed an interlocutory application before the Primary Tribunal under 16(5) seeking exclusion of the alleged non-agricultural land from the holding of the declarant. The said application was allowed by the Primary Tribunal and an advocate was appointed as Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting certain lands in order to ascertain the nature of those lands. Thereupon, the State preferred an appeal-LRA No.20 / 92 out of which the present C.R.P. arises. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the State holding that the order passed during the life time of the original declarant Parvathamma determining the ceiling area has become final and the question of re-computation of the landheld by Parvathamma on thenotified dated-does not arise at this distance of time. It was also observed that no purpose will be served by appointing a Commissioner at this stage inasmuch as it is difficult to find-out the nature and character of the land as on the notified date now.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the correct classification of the land could be gone into even now notwithstanding the finality attained by the orders passed by the Tribunal determining the surplus land as 1.1652 S.H. It is difficult to uphold this contention. Obviously, successive petitions cannot be filed to reopen the matters which have become final and it does not make any difference whether the dispute which is now sought to be raised relates to the nature of the land or to some other aspect. It is not as if there is any ari thmatical or clerical mistake which needs to be rectified under Rule 16(5). The so called mistake in the computation of the holding which is now sought to be rectified is not of such a nature which would fall within the purview of Rule 16(5). In fact, the determination of the question depends upon an investigation of facts. Unless there is express power conferred by the Act, the power to review and reopen the proceedings that have become final does not in-here in the Tribunal nor can it be inferred by implication. I do not therefore see any illegality in the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) The C.R.P. is therefore dismissed at the admission stage.