JUDGMENT : The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Warangal, filed the present civil revision petition under Section 21 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience, being aggrieved of an order made in L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal. The first respondent Daggu Madhava Rao, who was the appellant in the said L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 having died during the pendency of the civil revision petition, the legal representatives – Respondents 3 and 4 were brought on record by order dated 26.12.2003 made in C.M.P.No.21178 of 2002. 2. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration had taken this Court through the reasoning adopted by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal while allowing the appeal setting aside the order of the Primary Tribunal so far as it relates to Ac.4.01 guntas of land comprised in new S.No.274 (old S.No.368) of Parkal village, and would contend that the same cannot be sustained for the reason that the appellant being a third party objector having not raised such objections, if any, in pursuance of the publication made under Form VIII of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘Rules’ for the purpose of convenience) cannot be permitted to raise such objections by way of an appeal straight away and this procedure adopted by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal itself being not in accordance with law, the order under challenge in the present civil revision petition is to be set aside by this revisional Court. The learned counsel also would maintain that there is some material available on record to the effect that the third party had knowledge of the proceedings, but, however, had not chosen to raise objections at the appropriate stage. The counsel also would point out that the observations made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal relating to the non-giving of notices to the persons affected or persons in possession calling for objections by the Primary Tribunal also cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that there is no acceptable evidence to the effect that the tenants had been in possession of the land in question as on 1.1.1975. Even otherwise, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that there is no acceptable evidence to the effect that the tenants had been in possession of the land in question as on 1.1.1975. Hence the counsel would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in particular and also the relevant rules, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3. On the contrary, Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that the facts are not in controversy, the technical objection which is being taken by the revision petitioner also cannot be sustained for the reason that the procedure contemplated relating to the issuance of notices to the affected parties or the parties in actual possession itself had not been followed. When that being so, the appellant in L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 aforesaid had chosen the proper procedure of filing an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and inasmuch as the relevant facts not being in dispute after recording findings the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that these lands to be excluded and, accordingly, so far as it relates to an extent of Ac.4.01 guntas of land in new S.No.274 (old S.No.368) of Parkal village is concerned, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion ordering exclusion of the said land from the holding of the declarant. The learned counsel also pointed out to Exs.A-1, certified copy of certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 pahani patrikas and would maintain that in the light of these documents which had been placed before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, the order under challenge cannot be found fault. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to Section 10(5) of the Act and Section 13 of the Act as well and would maintain that in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the ground of non-compliance of raising objections to the notice under Form VIII may not seriously alter the situation and even otherwise at this distant point of time, even if an order of remand to be made, to follow the procedure, the same would be a futile exercise in the light of clear evidence of Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-3 which had been placed before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 4. Heard the counsel. Perused the order made in C.C.No.919/Pkl/ 75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal and also the order made in L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal. 5. As already specified above, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Warangal, being aggrieved of the order made in L.R.A.No.23 of 1990, dated 14.8.1992, had preferred the present civil revision petition under Section 21 of the Act. Inasmuch as the first respondent in the present civil revision petition is the appellant in L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 aforesaid being no more, the legal representatives are contesting the civil revision petition. The first respondent herein aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.1989 in C.C.No.919/Pkl/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal, being aggrieved of inclusion of Ac.4.01 guntas of land comprised in old S.No.368 (new S.No.276) of Parkal village preferred L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal. It is not in serious dispute that the said party is a third party and the said appeal was filed taking a stand that his father Daggu Jeedaiah was a protected tenant in respect of the said land and his father was also granted a certificate to that effect under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and hence the said land relating to which a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act aforesaid had been granted in favour of his father. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal, held that the said P.Keshava Rao, declarant was holding lands equivalent to 3-1995 in excess of ceiling area as on 1.1.1975. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal, held that the said P.Keshava Rao, declarant was holding lands equivalent to 3-1995 in excess of ceiling area as on 1.1.1975. The declarant failed to file a statement specifying particulars of land which he proposed to surrender. Hence the Tribunal aforesaid suo motu had chosen certain lands for surrender and made order dated 31.5.1989 holding that certain lands should be deemed to have been surrendered by the declarant under Section 10(4) of the Act and an extent of Ac.4.01 guntas of land comprised in old S.No.368 (new S.No.274) of Parkal village also was one such items of land. The specific case of the first respondent herein in the appeal was that his deceased father Jeedaiah was a protected tenant in respect of these lands, who was granted certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of the said Act and hence such lands are to be excluded and to be deleted from the holdings of the declarant. Before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal with the consent of the parties the undernoted documents had been marked. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of the Andhra Praesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Ex.A-2 is the Pahani patrika for the year 1987-88 of Parkal village. Ex.A-3 is the Pahani patrika for the year 1988-89 of Parkal village. 6. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal having formulated the point for consideration at para 4, recorded reasons at paras 5 and 6 and specifically observed that from the records maintained by the Revenue Department it is quite clear that the father of the first respondent herein in the civil revision petition i.e., the appellant in the aforesaid L.R.A., became owner of the land by virtue of the certificate issued to him under Section 38-E of the Act aforesaid and ultimately while allowing the appeal set aside the order made by the Primary Tribunal to an extent of Ac.4.01 guntas of land comprised in new S.No.274 (old S.No.368) of Parkal village and directed the same to be excluded from the holding of the declarant and included in the holding of the present first respondent in the C.R.P. i.e., appellant in the said L.R.A. 7. Section 10 of the Act deals with surrender of land in certain cases. Section 10 of the Act deals with surrender of land in certain cases. Section 10(5) of the Act reads as hereunder: “5(a) Notwithstanding anything in the Section, it shall be open to the Tribunal to refuse or to accept the surrender of any land – (i) which has been converted into non-agricultural land and has been rendered incapable of being used for purposes of agriculture; (ii) the surrender of which is not acceptable on account of a dispute as to the title to the land or an encumbrance on the land or on account of the land being in the possession of any person mentioned in item (v) of Clause (i) of Section 3 or on account of the land proposed to be surrendered becoming inaccessible by reason of its severence from the remaining part of the holding; and the Tribunal shall, in every such case, serve a notice on the person concerned requiring him to surrender any other land in lieu thereof; and thereupon the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall, mutatis mutandis apply to such surrender; Provided that when land proposed to be surrendered under this Section is burdened with a mortgage, the Tribunal may, on an application made by the mortgagor with the consent of the mortgagee, by order, transfer such mortgage from the land so proposed to be surrendered to the residuary holding of the mortgagor or to any part thereof. (b) Where the land so surrendered under Clause (a) is also not acceptable to the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall, after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, select any other land in lieu thereof, and thereupon, the said land shall be deemed to have been surrendered by such person.” 8. (b) Where the land so surrendered under Clause (a) is also not acceptable to the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall, after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, select any other land in lieu thereof, and thereupon, the said land shall be deemed to have been surrendered by such person.” 8. Section 13 of the Act deals with special provisions for protected tenants and the said provision reads as hereunder: “(1) Where the holding of any owner includes any land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal shall, in the first instance, determine whether such land or part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenant under Section38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, and if so, the extent of land so transferred; and such extent of land shall thereupon be excluded from the holding of such owner and included in the holding of such tenant, as if the tenant was the owner of such land for the purposes of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10, the relevant provisions of this Act aforesaid shall apply in the matter of such land by such protected tenant.” 9. Rule 7 of the Rules deals with surrender of land and Rule 7(4) specifies as hereunder: “The Tribunal shall, before passing an order under sub-section (3), sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 10, publish the particulars of land proposed to be surrendered or selected in Form VII in the same manner as provided for publication of the notice in Form IV, and consider the objections, if any received in pursuance of such publication.” 10. Form VIII reads as hereunder: FORM VIII [See Rule 7(4)] In the office of the Land Reforms Tribunal C.C.No. Public Notice Notice is hereby given that the lands specified in the schedule below are proposed to be surrendered or selected for surrender under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Tribunal has provisionally approved such surrenders. Any person having any objection concerning the schedule lands may file his objections in writing supported by a summary of evidence and copies of documents relied on, before the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of publication of this notice. All objections received within the time shall be considered by the Tribunal thereafter. Any person having any objection concerning the schedule lands may file his objections in writing supported by a summary of evidence and copies of documents relied on, before the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of publication of this notice. All objections received within the time shall be considered by the Tribunal thereafter. (By Order of the Tribunal) Place: Date: Signature of the Officer Authorised by the Tribunal Copies to the Tahsildar ……………………… for publication of the notices on the notice board of his office, the offices of the Gram Panchayats in whose jurisdiction the lands are situated and for announcing the fact of such publication by beat of tom tom in all the villages in which the lands are situated and for returning a copy with a certificate of such publication. Copy to the notice board of the Tribunal. Copy to the Officer authorized by the Government to receive such notices. TABLE 11. Submissions in elaboration had been made by the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration that when public notice had been issued in pursuance of Form VIII aforesaid in the light of Rule 7(4) of the Rules when objections had been called for, the first respondent in the C.R.P. having not raised any objections whatsoever, had preferred the appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and this procedure adopted by the first respondent cannot be permitted. However, Sri V.Manohar Rao on the contrary would pointed out that the Primary Tribunal and the authorities had not followed the prescribed procedure and the affected parties or persons in actual possession of the property, had not been put on notice at all and when that being so, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration cannot be permitted to contend that in pursuance of the said public notice no objections had been made by the first respondent in the present C.R.P. 12. It is no doubt true that in pursuance of the said public notice the first respondent herein also could have raised objections. It is no doubt true that in pursuance of the said public notice the first respondent herein also could have raised objections. But, however, the fact remains that being aggrieved of the inclusion of his lands to an extent of Ac.4.01 guntas in new S.No.274 (old S.No.368) of Parkal village, the first respondent had chosen to file L.R.A.No.23 of 1990 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal and the certified copy of the Certificate was placed before the Tribunal and the same was marked as Ex.A-1 and relevant pahani patriks were also marked as Exs.A-2 and A-3. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal verified the verification report and also verified revenue records and having been satisfied with the genuineness of Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-3 produced before the appellate Tribunal, the said L.R.A was allowed to the extent of Ac.4.01 guntas in new S.No.274 (old S.No.368) of Parkal village excluding the same from the holding of the declarant. This order made by the learned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with the object and spirit of the Act, as can be well reflected even from Section 13 of the Act which had been specified above. 13. Sri V.Manohar Rao also strongly relied on the decision of this Court in P.Ramaswamy v. Special Tahsildar, L.R., Hyderabad District and another, which is made in C.R.P.No.6953 of 1978, dated 16.4.1980, wherein the learned Judge while dealing with Section 10(5) of the Act held that the land in possession of a person other than the declarant who is the surplus holdes could not be accepted by way of surrender. When in fact these lands could not be computed in the holding of the owner they could never be surrendered by him and such surrender could not be accepted. Even when the Tribunal selects the lands of this nature for the purpose of enforcing surrender of land by the declarant, the Tribunal cannot select such lands, which are in possession of the third parties. This is prohibited by Section 10(5) of the Act. 14. In Gade Suresh v. Government of A.P., rep. Even when the Tribunal selects the lands of this nature for the purpose of enforcing surrender of land by the declarant, the Tribunal cannot select such lands, which are in possession of the third parties. This is prohibited by Section 10(5) of the Act. 14. In Gade Suresh v. Government of A.P., rep. by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Asifabad, Adilabad District 1977 (1) APLJ 112 the learned Judge of this Court held as hereunder: “The non issue of a certificate under Section 38-E (2) does not postpone or prevent the operation of Section 38-E (1) under which the ownership rights statutorily stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants in respect of the lands held by them as protected tenants subject to the conditions laid down in Section 38(7). The issue of a certificate under Section 38-E (2) arises only after the Tribunal determines the extent of land in respect of which the ownership rights stand transferred to the protected tenants. In the instant case, the observations of the Tribunal that it was admitted that the land was not transferred to the protected tenant under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act and that the protected tenant was also not issued a certificate under Section 38-E and, therefore, the land held by the protected tenant cannot be excluded from the holding of the declarant appears to be clearly erroneous. The Tribunal has to determine the extent of land in respect of which the ownership rights stands transferred to the protected tenants under Section38(7) read with 38-E. Such extent of land shall then be excluded from the holding of the declarant and only the remaining land will be included in the holding of the declarant.” 15. Strong reliance was also placed on the decision in N.Raghuma Reddy (died) and others v. State of A.P., rep. Strong reliance was also placed on the decision in N.Raghuma Reddy (died) and others v. State of A.P., rep. by the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and authorized officer and others 1998 (4) ALT 95 wherein the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with Section 13 of the Act in the context of Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 observed at paras 7 and 8 as hereunder: The alternative contention raise by the petitioners is also tenable in the impugned order itself, at page 6 it is stated by the Appellate Tribunal that faisal patti for the year 1975-76 discloses that a certificate under Sec.38-E of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1950 in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.393 and 394 of Tulekalan village was issued to a third party, obviously thereby meaning the tenants. At any rate, the respondents have not filed counter contesting this fact stated by the petitioners in their applications. Section 13 of the Act provides that a land or part thereof covered by Section 38-E of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy & Agril. Lands Act, 1950 should be excluded from the holding of the order. There is also no controversy that if these two lands are excluded from the holding of the petitioners, there would not be any excess. The discussion supra makes it very clear that on merits the petitioners have made out a strong case that the joint family consisting of the deceased Raghuma Reddy and his three sons, namely, the petitioners 2 to 4 do not hold excess land. Therefore, the steps taken by the revenue authorities of Ranga Reddy District to recover the excess land as determined by the Primary Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South, cannot be sustained in law. However, as pointed out supra, the order made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in L.R.A.Nos.24/78, 52/78 and 53/78 remains unchallenged and unless this order is quashed the determination correctly made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar cannot be given effect to. In that view of the mater, the Court invokes the suo motu power of correction and superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and quashes the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, dt.21.7.1978, passed in L.R.A.Nos.24/78, 52/78 and 53/78. In that view of the mater, the Court invokes the suo motu power of correction and superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and quashes the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, dt.21.7.1978, passed in L.R.A.Nos.24/78, 52/78 and 53/78. Consequently, the Civil Revision petition are allowed and the impugned order in each of the Civil Revision Petitions is set aside.” 16. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that even if an order of remand is to be made at this stage the same would be a futile exercise especially in the light of clear observations made by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in relation to the verification report and also the revenue records, further also in relation to Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-3 as well. 17. Except these submissions, no other submissions had been advanced by the counsel on record. In the light of the same, the civil revision petition being devoid of merit and the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.