1. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy.No.171, admeasuring Ac.12.30 cents situated at Macharam Village, Jedcharla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, in pursuance to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.G/3421/2006, dated 19.02.2007, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.E1/1/2008/E1/ 6320/2007, dated 28.6.2008, by treating the petitioners land as surplus land, as arbitrary and illegal.

2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the 1st petitioner died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.3 and 4.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

               (a) Originally, late Sri Venkata Rao S/o.Venkatappa Rao, was the absolute owner and pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac.12.30 cents in Sy.No.171, situated at Macharam Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The 1st petitioner purchased the said land from the original owner, the late Sri Venkata Rao, under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.764/1965, dated 13.05.1965. Since the date of purchase, the 1st petitioner and his family members have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. Initially, the land was purchased under an unregistered sale deed dated 25.05.1960, and subsequently, a regular registered sale deed was executed on 13.05.1965.

               (b) The original owner, late Sri Venkata Rao, filed a declaration under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Land Reforms Tribunal found that he was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. While filing the declaration, the declarant included lands that had already been sold through registered sale deeds much prior to the enactment of the A.P. Land Reforms Act. Consequently, he surrendered the lands that had already been sold in favour of the petitioners.

               (c) Without verifying the revenue records, the persons in actual occupation, the entries in the Faisal Patti records, or the entries in the Adangals/Pahanies pertaining to the period prior to 1972, and without issuing notice to the petitioners as mandated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, appears to have accepted the said surrender. Thus, without the knowledge of the petitioners, their patta lands, purchased under a registered sale deed in the year 1965, were treated as Government land.

               (d) Subsequently, the authorities issued pattas in favour of the petitioners in respect of the very same land purchased by the 1st petitioner in the year 1965. Being illiterate and not well acquainted with the legal procedures followed by the revenue authorities, the petitioners accepted the pattas under the bona fide belief that they would further strengthen their existing rights and title acquired under the registered sale deed of 1965. Thereafter, the land was partitioned among the family members, and the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioners.

               (e) The 3rd respondent vide order dated 19.02.2007, directed the 4th respondent to take possession of the subject land into Government custody. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.02.2007, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. By order dated 28.06.2008, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating as follows:

               (a) The 3rd respondent, after carefully examining the matter, cancelled the assignment in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 12.20 guntas in Sy. No. 171 in favour of Narsimulu and five others vide Progs. No. G/3421/2006, dated 19.02.2007. The 3rd respondent issued notices to the assignees through the Tahsildar, Jadcherla. However, they failed to submit any representation or objection even after the lapse of four months. Therefore, it was presumed that they had nothing to explain in the matter, and accordingly, the assignment was cancelled.

               (b) The surplus land was regularized by misrepresenting the facts, thereby violating of Section 3(1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Therefore, no grounds are found to interfere with the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Progs. No. G/3421/2006, dated 19.02.2007.

               (c) As per the connected records, the land in Sy. No. 171 of Macharam Village, Jadcherla Mandal, is ceiling surplus land, and its original pattadar Sri Venkata Appa Rao of Vallur Village had surrendered the land to the Government under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

               (d) One Sri V. Narsimha Reddy, S/o Kista Reddy, purchased the said land after it had been surrendered to the Government, and mutations were subsequently effected in the revenue records in his favour. Thereafter, he managed to obtain assignment of the very same land in the names of his family members by removing the suffix "Reddy" from their names and by misrepresenting the facts, thereby misleading the revenue authorities with the sole intention of retaining the surplus land purchased by him. The assignees alienated the assigned land in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

               (e) The 2nd respondent, after considering the material available on record, rightly passed the impugned order. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a reply affidavit stating as follows :-

               (a) The revenue authorities mutated the name of the deceased first petitioner in the revenue records on 26.12.1969 in the Faisal Patti vide Proceedings No. A2/3515/69. Several declarations were filed by land owners through misrepresentation and suppression of material facts in the then combined State of Andhra Pradesh. The State Legislature enacted Act No. 10 of 2012, inserting Section 9-A into the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, with effect from 01.01.1973.

               (b) Under Section 9-A of the said Act, the Land Reforms Tribunal has the power to reopen cases where it is found that the orders were obtained or passed as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. Sub-section (2) of Section 9-A stipulates that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall not apply to the initiation of proceedings under sub-section (1), i.e., for the reopening of such cases.

               (c) In the present case, although the said provision came into force after the filing of the present writ petition, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioners' contention that the subject land in Sy.No.171 cannot be treated as ceiling surplus land, as the declarant had misrepresented the facts by including the said land in Sy. No. 171 in his declaration. The surrender made by the declarant and its acceptance by the Land Reforms Tribunal were effected behind the back of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner initially purchased the land in Sy.No.171 under an unregistered sale deed dated 25.05.1960 and subsequently obtained a registered sale deed in the year 1965. The name of the 1st petitioner was entered in the revenue records and the Faisal Patti of the year 1969, recognizing him as the absolute owner, pattadar, and person in possession of the land. His name was also recorded as Pattadar in the Adangals relating to the agricultural years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. Thus, the revenue records clearly establish that the 1st petitioner was recognized as pattadar much prior to the enactment of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

7. Learned counsel further submits that under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, whenever a declaration is filed under Section 8 of the Act, the Land Reforms Tribunal is required to conduct an enquiry, determine the ceiling area, and pass appropriate orders. Such an enquiry has to be conducted in accordance with Rules 4, 5, and 6 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. The said Rules specifically mandate issuance of notice to persons in occupation of the land. In the present case, admittedly, no such notice was issued to the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners purchased the land in Sy.No.171 of Macharam Village nearly thirteen years prior to the enactment of the 1973 Act, and the sale deed was duly registered about eight years prior to the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the inclusion of the subject land in the declaration filed by the original declarant, treating it as his land, the acceptance of its surrender by the Tribunal, and its classification as surplus land without issuing notice to the petitioners, who were the lawful owners and pattadars, are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

9. Learned counsel further submits that, by virtue of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the 1st petitioner and the consequential mutation of his name in the revenue records as early as in the year 1969, the subsequent assignment of the very same land in the year 1981 by treating it as ceiling surplus Government land is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, cannot be invoked in respect of the petitioners' land. Therefore, the subject land cannot be treated either as Government land or as ceiling surplus land.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the very same declarant had also included lands sold to several third parties in his declaration, and those lands were taken over by the Government as surplus lands. Upon knowing the said fact, the respective purchasers approached the Land Reforms Tribunal seeking deletion of their lands from the list of ceiling surplus lands. The Tribunal, upon consideration of their request, allowed their applications and passed orders deleting those lands from the ceiling surplus holdings.

11. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned orders have not been implemented till date, and the petitioners are in physical possession of the subject land. The 3rd respondent, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, erroneously passed the order, dated 19.02.2007. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent contending that they had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing by the 3rd respondent. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent erroneously concurred with the findings of the 3rd respondent and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and allow the writ petition.

12. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that respondents Nos.2 and 3, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, rightly passed the impugned orders and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

14. On 03.03.2009, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy.No.171 admeasuring Ac.12.30 cents situated at Macharam Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, by suspending the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 19.02.2007 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent on 28.06.2008, pending disposal of the writ petition.

15. In the instant case, if the lands in question were indeed surplus lands, it is difficult to understand how the revenue authorities mutated the name of the deceased first petitioner in the revenue records as early as 26.12.1969. From 1969 onwards, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land, and their possession was never questioned, nor were any proceedings initiated against them.

16. After a lapse of several decades, a notice was issued on 17.09.2006, and thereafter, the 3rd respondent, by proceedings dated 19.02.2007, directed the 4th respondent to take possession of the subject land. Subsequently, on appeal, the 2nd respondent, relying on the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the 3 rd respondent, dismissed the appeal on 28.06.2008 by confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent.

17. Once the revenue authorities had mutated the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, after such a long lapse of time, cannot be legally sustained. Moreover, whether knowingly or inadvertently, some lands were shown as surplus lands. Subsequently, the original purchasers of those lands approached the revenue authorities and made an application for deletion and the Land Reforms Tribunal passed orders deleting the said lands. Having taken such action in respect of similarly situated surplus lands, the authorities ought to have considered the petitioners' case in the same manner. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 directing the resumption of the land in question from the petitioners cannot be accepted.

18. According to the petitioners, the sale transactions took place 13 years prior to the enactment of the 1973 Act and eight years before the Act came into force. In view of the revenue authorities' own official actions in registering the documents and mutating the revenue records, the orders impugned herein cannot be sustained.

19. Further, as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the revenue authorities had not taken possession of the property pursuant to the impugned orders, and the petitioners continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that possession had already been taken on 24.02.2007. However, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2009, and this Court granted an interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land.

20. If the respondents had, in fact, taken possession of the land in the year 2007, it is difficult to understand why they remained silent when this Court passed the interim order. Moreover, if they were genuinely aggrieved by the interim order, they ought to have filed a petition to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. However, the respondents did not file any application seeking to vacate the interim order. This clearly indicates that the petitioners continued to be in possession of the subject property when the interim order was passed by this Court.

21. Once the sale document had been duly registered in the year 1969, and in the absence of any proceedings cancelling or setting aside the said document, the respondent authorities could not have resumed or taken back the lands in question.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have erroneously passed the orders dated 19.02.2007 and 28.06.2008, respectively, and the same are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.