IPPALA CHENCHI REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point that arises in this revision is whether certain points with reference to the holding which were not initially raised but were subsequently sought to be raised at the time when the matter was remanded by the revision court, could be allowed to be agitated.

(2.) The facts are brief and simple- The revision petitioner herein had filed a declaration wherein he has stated that certain survey numbers were alienated and therefore they will have to be excluded from the computation. Facing unfavourable orders both in the primary as well as in the appellate tribunal, revisional jurisdiction was invoked favourably and, eventually, the court remanded the matter-acceding to the contentions of the revision-petitioner for due re-computation. It is at that stage, two points were agitated, namely, certain survey numbers were erroneously classified as double crop wet lands only, and, likewise, reasonably certain survey numbers instead of being classified as dry lands, the same were wrongly classified as single crop wet lands. Now, both the primary as well as the appellate tribunals have come to the conclusion that there was an error doubtless in treating the lands as double crop and single crop wet lands respectively, but they found themselves helpless by observing that these points could not be re-agitated in view of the fact that there was nothing in the remand order pertaining to this aspect of the case. It is sgainst this the revision petition is preferred.

(3.) Sri Ayycpu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that it is open to the revision petitioner to canvass the points which were not canvassed hitherto right upto the final stage of enquiry when the lands that have to be surrendered got vested in the Government. The scheme of the enactment and the rules framed thereunder, the learned counsel submits, is that the Tribunals can either take up the matter suo moto and correct the errors either arising cut of emissions or rrcdify the matters made by inadvertance, or, alternatively, it is also open to the parties concerned to invoke the tribunal's jurisdiction to get the errors or the left over matters agitated upon. There is sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.