(1) 1. The common cation of low that arise concideration in these two revision petitions directed against the order of the land reforms appellate tribunal is whether at the stage of surrender the order made under sec. 9 read with sec. 8 of the a. P. Land refroms (celing on agrl. Holdings) act. 1973 could be questioned and a pint not taken before the land reforms appellate tr. Bunal could noe be rasided.
(2) The declarant had p'referred l. R. R no. 208/77 on the file of the land reforms appellate tribunal,nizamabad. And that was desposed of by an order dated 31 - 5 - 1977 determining the execess land liable to be surrendered by the declarant at 0. 6026 stander holdings. Nither before the primary tribunal nor before the appllate tribunal in the said lr. A, did the declarant take the plea that some extent of land which was computed in his holding was " pote kharab" and as such it was not "land" within the meaning of the land as held by this court in k. Rama reddy vs. State of a. P. , (1) 1978 (1) a. P. L. J. 92. When he was called upon to surrender the; excess land of 06066 standard holdings as determined in lr. A 208/77 he included in his holding plea that the tote kharab land was wrongly included in his holding and as such the same should be execluded and the was liable to surrender that land which may be found to be in excess after the deletion of the potekharab land. That plea, was rejected by the tribunal on the ground that such plea not having been taken in l. R. A. No. 208/77 cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage. Of surrender the declarant carried the matter in appeal before the land reforms appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal by its order dated 30 - 12 - 78 in l. R. A. No. 28/79 of the allowed the appeal and directed the ascertainment and exlusion of the pote - kharab land in computing the holding of the petitioner's family unit. Petition no. 4871/79.
(3) C. R. P no. 4872/89 is also filed similar curcuments against the order of the land refroms appellate tribunal, nizamabad in l. R. A. 10/79. While the order of the land reforms appellate tribunal in the previous appeal of the declarant l. R. A. 133/77 dated 26 - 9 - 77 declaring the excess land liable to be surrendered by him to be 0. 2300 standarda holdings had become final, he had raised the plea that "pote - kharab" land should be exculded. That plea having been rejected by the promary tribunal he carreied the matter in appleal lra 10/79 which was allowed on 19 - 2 - 79.
(4) After a declaration under sec. 8 is filed by a person, the tribunal is required to determine whether that person holds or is deemed to hold on the notified date an extent of land in excess of the ceiling area to which that person is entitled and if so the extent of land so held in excess as on that date. Any person aggrieved by the determination of the holding is entitled to prefer an appeal under s. 20 of the act to the land reforms appellate tribunal. Against the order of the land reforms appellate tribunal the aggrieved party may file a revision under section 20 of the act. Once the order passed under section 9 becomes final, the person holding the land in excess of the ceiling area is liable to surrender the land held in excess as laid down in s. 10 of the act. At that stage there is no provision for again revising the order passed under s. 9 which has become final. The acceptance or rejection of the surrender is again an order passed by the tribunal which may be carried in appeal and revision under secs. 20 and 21 of the act. But nonetheless what can be considered in that apppeal or revision is whether surrender is in accordance with the final order under sec. 9 and whether the surrender of any land is improperly rejected and whether the tribunal was justified in directing some other land to be surrendered than the one offered by the declarant. These proceedings under sec. 10 are more or less in the nature of execution in which the correctness of the order under sec. 9 cannot be canvassed. The limited questions mentioned in sec. 10 alone are required to be considered.
(5) The present contention raised by the respondent declarant that certain land is "potekharab ' and as such should not be computed in the holdingof the petitioner or petitioner's family unit, is a contention which properly ought to have been raised in the proceedings under sec. 9 for that affects the determination of the - holding of the. Person and the excess land if any held by him and hable to be surrendered. :lt does not relate to a matter falling under sec. 10. As such the sme could not be raised in these proceedings alter the order under sec. 9 has become final. Mr. Prakaahrao the learned counsel for the respondent however placed reliance upon the judgment 'of the allahabad high court in banwari v. State (2) a. I. R. 1975 allahabad, 189. That was a case under the u. P. , imposition of ceiling on land holding act (i of 1360) relating to the allotment of surplus land to a person whe was residing with his father having plenty of land and was not, therefore, a landless labourer. The allotment was thus procured by concealment of that fact from the prescribed authority. When these facts were revealed the prescribed authority cancelled the allotment.
(6) The contention raised before the learned single judge of the allahabad high court was that the prescribed authority had no power to review its order. Repelling thai conterition the learned single judge held:
"even if the prescribed authority had no inherent power under s. 151 civil p. C. , to review its order, yet the allotment of land being purely an administrative order and in the insant case the same having been based on a mistake resulting in injustice to others the order could be reviewed and rectified by the prescribed authority."
(7) This judgment can have no application to a situation with which we are now concerned. Firstly the order under sec,9 is not an administrative order. It is an order passed under a statute with respect to the right s of the parties to retain the land and render him liable to surrender the excess land held as determined under that provision. The orders made under sec. 9 of the andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agriculture i holdings) act can by no stretch of imagination be deemed to be administrative orders. They being orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities in accordance with the statute, affecting the rights of the parties the finality of the orders passed thereunder, can be disturbed only in accordance with the act and not under any inherent power. The tribunal constituted under the andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agricultural holdings) act have no inherent power and there is no specific power of review granted under the act. Further the question now before me in this revision petition is not whether the tribunal could review its order. In fact no petition for review was filed in this case. If at all the question whether any "potekharab" land was computed in the holding of the petitioner and if so whether it ought to be excluded was a matter which was to be raised before the land reforms appellate tribunal in l. R. As. Nos. 208/77 and 133/1977, if it was not raised or if those orders were erroneous and deserved to be reviewed, the declarants have only to seek review of those orders if so advised under the so called inherent powers vasted in the tribunals. But no such petition having been filed, i am not called upon to express any opinion on that, though i am of the view that no such order by way of review could be passed the decision of the allahabad high court relied upon by the learned counsel is not of any assistance. I am therefore clearly of the view that both the tribunals committed error of law and acted without jurisdiction in disturbing the finality of the orders made in l. R. A. Nos. 208 and 133/77 in allowing the respondent - declarant to raise the plea that the "potekharab land" ought to be excluded and the excess land liable to be surrendered by him has to be reduced to the extent it contained "pote - kharab" in a proceeding under sec. 10 of the act. The orders of the both the tribunals are therefore set aside to that extent. These two crps are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee rs. 150/ - in each.