Y MALLAPPA Vs. LAND CEILLINGS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel representing the revision petitioner and the learned A. G. P. for Arbitration representing respondents.

(2.) THE civil revision petition is filed under Section 21 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) as against an order - notice dated 30. 9. 2003 OP the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Adoni. The said order reads as hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_503_ALD5_2008Html1.htm</FRM> The learned Senior Counsel had taken this court through the contents of the order impugned in the C. R. P. and would maintain that the impugned notice is totally unsustainable as per Section 10 (2) of the act and the learned Senior Counsel also would maintain that the husband of the petitioner while he was alive litigated the matter and he died in the year 1992 and before his death, the entire land shown was either occupied by encroachers or sold out by him and no land is available for surrender and absolutely there is no justification in issuing the impugned notice after a lapse of 22 years from the date of disposal of c. R. P. No. 2048/80 and hence, in the light of the same, the civil revision petition to be allowed.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned A. G. P. for Arbitration would maintain that the present C. R. P. cannot be maintained under Section 21 of the Act for the reason that an application for revision from any party aggrieved including the Government shall lie to the High Court from any order passed on appeal by the Appellate tribunal on the grounds specified and not otherwise. No doubt, incidentally the learned A. G. P. for Arbitration also made certain submissions touching the merits of the matter.