Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 211 (AP)

K. Nagaraja Rao v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms

2014-02-12

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2014
Order: 1. These Revisions arise under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. As both these Revisions relate to the holding of the same declarant by name K.Padmanabha Rao, S/o.K.Krishna Rao, r/o Penukonda, Ananthapur District, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. The said declarant had 6 sons by name K.Sreenivasa Rao, K.Raghavendra Rao, K.Nagaraja Rao, K.Badrinath, K.Krishna Rao and K.Vasantha Rao. The mother of the declarant is K.Laxmi Bai @ Atchamma. On 07-04-1975, the declarant, his mother and his sons filed declarations in C.C.Nos.558 to 565 of 1975 under Section 8(1) of the Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Anantapur District (for short ‘the primary tribunal’). By a common order dt.11-02-1976, the Tribunal determined under Section 9 of the Act that the family unit of the declarant in C.C.No.558 of 1975 holds an extent of land equivalent to 13.5209 SH in excess of the ceiling area and it is liable to be surrendered under Section 10(1) of the Act. It also determined that the mother of the declarant holds an excess of 12.4771 SH in excess of the ceiling area and each of the 6 major sons of the declarant hold 0.5219 SH. 4. On an application filed by the declarant pointing out certain mistakes in the said order, the primary tribunal vide order dt.15.3.1976 modified the excess holding of the declarant as 13.3944 SH and that of his mother Laxmibai as 13.3602 SH. 5. Dissatisfied with this determination, the declarant and his family members filed L.R.A.Nos.86 of 1976, 125 of 1976 and 158 of 1976 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur. By order dt.28-09-1976, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed all the appeals with the modification (in L.R.A.No.86 of 1975 filed by the declarant) that he should surrender 12.3944 SH as against 13.3944 SH declared surplus by the primary Tribunal. 6. On 22-06-1977, the declarant and his family members filed applications before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Ananthapur District for increasing their holdings seeking benefit of Section 4-A of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act,1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 10 of 1977’). 6. On 22-06-1977, the declarant and his family members filed applications before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Ananthapur District for increasing their holdings seeking benefit of Section 4-A of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act,1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 10 of 1977’). In these applications, the declarant and his sons claimed that since the sons are majors on the notified date, an extent equal to one standard holding should be computed to the holding of each son and the said extent be deducted from the holding of the declarant applying the said provision. By order dt.28-03-1978, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Ananthapur District partly allowed it only to a minor extent by adding 0.0057 to the holding of each son and determining their holding as 0.5228 SH each and that of the declarant as 12.2602 SH. 7. This was challenged in L.R.A.No.42 of 1978 by the declarant and his sons before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur. 8. By order dt.05-05-1978, the said appeal was allowed granting to the declarant and his sons full benefit under Section 4-A of the Act. The appellate Tribunal held that each of the major sons of the declarant were found to be holding 0.5171 SH only by the primary tribunal previously and the deficit caused in one standard holding which each of them are entitled to, should be deducted from the excess holding of the declarant, their father. Thus, the benefit of 1 SH – (minus) 0.5171 = 0.4829 SH x 6 (for each of 6 sons) = 2.8974 SH should be deducted from the holding of the declarant. It therefore deducted this extent from 12.3944 SH computed to the holding of the declarant and held that the balance of 9.4970 SH alone is liable to be surrendered by the declarant. 9. In this appeal, the declarant and his sons also urged for the first time that there is a tank of an extent of Ac.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 of R.Locherla village of Roddam Mandal of Anantapur district belonging to them, that it has to be treated as nonSy.No.60/2 of R.Locherla village of Roddam Mandal of Anantapur district belonging to them, that it has to be treated as nonagricultural land and it should be exempted from the holding of the declarant. This contention was rejected by the appellate Tribunal on the ground that such a contention was not raised by the declarant and his sons in the appeal filed previously and therefore, they are not entitled to agitate the said issue again. It also held that L.R.A.No.42 of 1978 was confined only to the order of the Primary Tribunal under Section 4-A of the Act and any fresh consideration of the contentions raised by the declarant in respect of the tank would amount to reviewing the orders already passed determining the holding of the declarant and it cannot be permitted. 10. This order became final and was not challenged by the declarant. 11. Consequently on 11-05-1978 the holding of the declarant under Section 9 of the Act was declared as 9.4970 SH in excess of the ceiling limit. In response thereto, the declarant proposed to surrender certain lands of an extent of Ac.615.49 cents including the land of Ac.201.29 cts. in Sy.No.60/2 of R.Locherla village of Roddam Mandal of Anantapur district. By order dt.17-12-1978, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur approved under Section 10(3) of the Act, the surrender of the lands to the extent of Ac.615.49 cents. On 17.1.1979, possession of this extent of ac.615.49 cts was taken by the State under Section 10 of the Act. 12. Thereafter notice dt.11-06-1979 under Rule 12 of the rules framed under the Act was served on the declarant proposing to pay compensation of Rs.7,500/-. The declarant filed objections to the said notice contending inter alia that the entire lands of all the family members of the declarant cannot be clubbed for the purpose of compensation and compensation has to be calculated on the basis of surrender of lands of each individual member as per Second schedule to the Act. It was further contended that there is a tank bund among the surrendered lands for which compensation was not determined, that more than Rs.50,000/- was spent for construction of the bund and for this permanent structure, no compensation was awarded and he is entitled to compensation for the said structure. 13. Notwithstanding these objections, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur, by order dt.23-02-1989 fixed the compensation payable to the declarant and his sons for the land surrendered by them at Rs.7,500/-. 14. This was challenged by the declarant in L.R.A.No.2 of 1990 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur. 15. 13. Notwithstanding these objections, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur, by order dt.23-02-1989 fixed the compensation payable to the declarant and his sons for the land surrendered by them at Rs.7,500/-. 14. This was challenged by the declarant in L.R.A.No.2 of 1990 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur. 15. By order dt.05-02-1996, it allowed the appeal. The appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the declarant that the land surrendered by him included the tank, tank bund and fruit bearing trees such as date-trees, that the primary Tribunal had not fixed compensation in respect of these items as per the Rules provided under the Act and that the declarant is entitled to the same. The State, through the Government Pleader, conceded before the appellate Tribunal that the Primary Tribunal had not fixed the compensation for these items which were surrendered by him in view of his excess holding and stated that it had no objection to remand the matter for fresh disposal according to law so that the compensation in respect of these items can be fixed. The appellate Tribunal therefore held that the primary Tribunal had not fixed the compensation in respect of these items which had been surrendered by the declarant and that the primary Tribunal’s order dt.23-02-1989 is erroneous. It therefore set it aside and remanded the matter to the primary Tribunal with a direction to it to fix the compensation as per Rule 11 of the A.P.Land Reforms Rules, 1974 in respect of fruit bearing trees, tank and tank bund surrendered by the declarant to the State. 16. This order became final and was not challenged by the State. 17. After remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Anantapur again passed order on 05-10-1998 fixing the value of the tank bund as Rs.1,60,800/-, value of the fruit bearing trees as Rs.25,500/- and value of the land in the tank bed along with surrendered land as Rs.7,500/-. It held that this amount is payable with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date the lands were taken possession of. 18. The declarant was dissatisfied with this judgment. He therefore filed L.R.A.No.2 of 1999 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur. It held that this amount is payable with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date the lands were taken possession of. 18. The declarant was dissatisfied with this judgment. He therefore filed L.R.A.No.2 of 1999 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur. In the said appeal, the appellant specifically contended that in spite of the order dt.05-02-1996 in L.R.A.No.2 of 1990 to fix compensation for the tank, the primary Tribunal had not done so; that it had calculated only the value of the tank bund but it had not calculated the value of Ac.201.29 cents of land covered by the tank while determining the compensation payable. 19. By judgment dt.17-09-2004, the appellate Tribunal accepted this contention as the learned Government Pleader again conceded that compensation was not calculated for the tank bed and that it had fixed value for only the fruit bearing trees and the tank bund. In this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the matter was again remanded to the primary Tribunal directing it to fix compensation for the tank bed. 20. This order was also not challenged by the State. Thus, both in the order dt.05-02-1996 in L.R.A.No.2 of 1990 and order dt.17-09- 2004 in L.R.A.No.2 of 1999, the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal did not accept the contention of the State that the sum of Rs.7,500/- which it had originally determined on 23-02-1989 included the compensation in respect of the land of Ac.201.49 cents covered by the tank and specifically directed the primary Tribunal to compute the compensation for this extent again. 21. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda in Rc.No.1191/2005/H dt.03-09-2005 addressed to the District Collector, Anantapur referring to the opinion of the Government Pleader and also the provisions of Section 7 of Act 10 of 1977 and stated that the possession of the tank had been taken on 17-01-1979, that its extent is Ac.201.00 cents and the declarant is entitled to compensation as per proviso to Section (5) of the Act 10 of 1977. He computed the compensation payable on market value basis under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as Rs.2,08,50,811/-. He computed the compensation payable on market value basis under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as Rs.2,08,50,811/-. He referred to the fact that the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal in its order dt.17-09-2004 in L.R.A.No.2 of 1999 had fixed 3 months time to complete the process and pay the compensation and requested the Collector to refer the matter to the Government for obtaining required funds so that he may initiate action under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after receipt of funds from the Government. 22. Vide proceedings C.C.No.558/75, PKD dt.05-10-2005 the District Collector wrote to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, rejecting his above proposal. The Collector opined that the appellate Tribunal had not ordered fixing of the compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that on 05-10-1998 itself, the primary Tribunal had already determined theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that on 05-10-1998 itself, the primary Tribunal had already determined the compensation for the tank bund, fruit bearing trees and tank bed along with other lands surrendered by the declarant as Rs.1,93,800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. thereon and the said calculation had not been set aside by the appellate Tribunal in its order dt.17-09-2004 in L.R.A.No.2 of 1999. The Collector also held that the Revenue Divisional Officer had now initiated the proposal as per Section 7(5) of Act 10 of 1977 but as per the said provision, the Collector can consider to recommend the Government for payment of compensation, only when it causes hardship to the allottees while resuming lands and such a situation did not arise in the present case because the declarant is not a “non surplus holder”. 23. However, no communication in this regard appears to have been sent to the declarant. Vexed with the delay in payment of compensation, the declarant filed an application on 07-11-2005 before the primary Tribunal seeking issuance of orders exempting the tank and tank bund of an extent of Ac.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 from his holding. 24. By order dt.30-11-2005, the primary Tribunal accepted the plea of the declarant and revised the previous orders computing the holding of the declarant and exempting this extent from the total holding of the declarant. 24. By order dt.30-11-2005, the primary Tribunal accepted the plea of the declarant and revised the previous orders computing the holding of the declarant and exempting this extent from the total holding of the declarant. He held that the submerged tank-bed was not liable to be included in the holding of the declarant as it is not covered by the definition of the term “land” in Section 3(j) of the Act as it was a private tank and cannot be treated as agricultural land. He also relied upon the rulings of this Court in Vintha Koteswara Reddy Vs. The Authorised Officer, L.R.Nuzivid (1978 (2) ALT 13 (NRC), Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Varadaraja Gopala Krishna Yachandra Bahadur Varu Vs. Special Tahsildar & Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Nellore (1978(1) ALT 472) and K.Nagabhushanam Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.R.), Anantapur (1978(1) ALT 33 (NRC). 25. The State, through the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Anantapur, preferred appeal L.R.A.No.1 of 2006 before the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Anantapur against the above order. 26. By order dt.29-09-2006, the said appeal was allowed. The appellate Tribunal held that the primary Tribunal had not followed the directions of the appellate Tribunal passed in L.R.A.No.2 of 1999 on 17-09-2004; the appellate Tribunal had remitted the matter to the primary Tribunal with a direction to fix the compensation for the tank bed but instead of doing so, the primary Tribunal had revised its own previous order by excluding the tank bed from the holding of the declarant and it has no right to review its own order. It therefore set aside the order dt.30-11-2005 of the primary Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the primary Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter as per the directions given in the order dt.17-09-2004 in L.R.A.No.2 of 1999 of the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal by fixing the compensation for the tank bed after considering all the evidence produced by the appellants, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. 27. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.1139 of 2010 before this Court. 28. 27. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.1139 of 2010 before this Court. 28. In the said Revision, petitioner/declarant contended that there was nothing wrong with the primary Tribunal granting exemption to the declarant in respect of the tank bed land of Ac.201.29 cents and that the Tribunal was competent to re-determine the excess land by virtue of the provision contained in Section 7 of Act 10 of 1977. He also contended that in the instant case, the determination of the holding of the declarant had taken place prior to 30-04-1977 and the surrender of the land took place subsequent to that date and hence, the provisions Section 7(1) of the Act 10 of 1977 are attracted. 29. In the mean time, after remand by the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur in L.R.A.No.1 of 2006, the primary Tribunal, passed an order on 09-05-2007 taking the view that compensation for the tank bed had already been fixed in its previous order dt.05-10-1998 along with the surrendered lands as per the Act, that the appellate Tribunal had never ordered to fix compensation for the tank bund/tank bed under the Land Acquisition Act and compensation had already been received by the declarant without raising any dispute. 30. This order of the primary Tribunal was questioned by the petitioner in L.R.A.No.1 of 2007 before the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal , Anantapur. By order dt.20-11-2008, the appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dt.09-05-2007 of the primary Tribunal. It held that at no point of time the declarant had asked the primary Tribunal to treat the tank as non-agricultural land or to exempt it from his holdings and his only contention was to fix the compensation for tank bed land separately on the ground that “it was not a “land” as defined in Section 3(j) of the Act. Curiously, the appellate Tribunal also held that its earlier orders in L.R.A.Nos.2 of 1990 and 2 of 1999 were erroneous in so far as they directed the primary Tribunal to fix compensation. It also held that if compensation has to be fixed, reopening the computation of the ceiling area of the declarant which had already attained finality had to be done, that this is impermissible and provisions of Act 10 of 1977 are not applicable. It also held that if compensation has to be fixed, reopening the computation of the ceiling area of the declarant which had already attained finality had to be done, that this is impermissible and provisions of Act 10 of 1977 are not applicable. It also held that the surrender of lands by the declarant was accepted and compensation of Rs.7,500/- had already been paid by the land covered by the tank in Sy.No.60/2. 31. Aggrieved thereby, the declarant has filed C.R.P.No.5671 of 2008. 32. Heard the counsel for petitioner Sri V. Srinivas and the learned Government Pleader for respondents in both Revisions. 33. The counsel for petitioner submits that on 11.02.1976, the Primary Tribunal had determined the holding of the declarant as 13.5209 SH which was later modified on 24.03.1976 as 13.3944SH; thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 was enacted with retrospective effect from 01.01.1975; that the said Act received the assent of the President of India on 29.04.1977 and the said assent was published on 30.04.1977 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette; Section 4-A was introduced by the said amendment, apart from amendments to other sections; under Section 7 (1) of Act 10 of 1977, if there was a determination of the holding of a declarant under Section 9 prior to 30.04.1977 and a proceeding under Section 10 is pending on 30.04.1977, it was the duty of the Primary Tribunal to suo moto or on an application made in that behalf by a person affected, to re-determine the holding of a declarant afresh, if the provisions of the principal Act as amended by Act 10 of 1977 are applicable to declarant; that declarant did make a claim under Section 4-A before the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda contending that he had six major sons and that, therefore, the benefit under Section 4-A ought to haveReforms Tribunal, Penukonda contending that he had six major sons and that, therefore, the benefit under Section 4-A ought to have been granted to him and to his sons by increasing the holding of each such major son by an extent of land equal to ceiling area applicable to such major son; at that time itself the Tribunal should have granted exclusion of the Ac.201.29 cts. covered by the tank from the holding of the declarant; although the said application was partly allowed on 20.03.1978 by the Primary Tribunal, on appeal in LRA.No.42 of 1978 , full benefit under Sec.4-A of the Act was allowed vide order dt.05.05.1978; that there was an assurance by the Officials of the State that they would pay compensation for the tank, i.e., the land covered by the tank in addition to the tank-bund, fruit bearing trees and the other surrendered land; although this point was specifically not raised in the application filed before the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda in 1978 it was canvassed specifically in LRA.No.42 of 1978 by the declarant but that contention was not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal erroneously; that the Appellate Tribunal could have considered the issue as to whether the land covered by the tank is to be excluded from the holding of declarant only if the said appeal were pending before it on 30.04.1977; that since the appeal LRA.No.42 of 1978 was itself filed after the said date, the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction inherently to pronounce any view on the exclusion of the land covered by the tank; that therefore, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in its order dt.05.05.1978 in LRA.No.42 of 1978 that the land covered by the tank cannot be excluded from the holding of declarant is one without jurisdiction and would not operate as res judicata and bind the declarant or the authorities under the Act. He relied on Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Varadaraja Gopala Krishna Yachandra Bahadur Varu (2 supra) and contended that this Court in that case had held that land covered by the tank cannot be said to be ‘land’ as defined under Section 3 (j) of the Act; therefore, the holding of the declarant should be re-computed excluding the extent of Acs.201.29 cents; that in fact, such exclusion should have been done by the Primary Tribunal itself when it was considering the plea of the declarant under Section 4-A of the Act; and since that was not done at any point of time, in view of Section 7(5) of Act 10 of 1977 and proviso thereto, it was incumbent on the State to at least pay compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 treating the tank as having been acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act on the notified date i.e. 01.01.1975. 34. 34. He further contended that there was a concession on behalf of the State that they would pay compensation for the tank, on the basis of which an order dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990 was passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal; that in the said order the appellate Tribunal had specifically rejected the contention of the State that the compensation of Rs.7,500/- fixed in the order of the primary Tribunal dt.23.02.1989 did not include the compensation for the tank, the tank-bund and fruit bearing trees; it had directed the primary Tribunal to fix the said compensation in respect of the fruit bearing trees, tank and tank-bund which were surrendered to the Government; that as regards fruit bearing trees and tank-bund are concerned, Rule-11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Rules, 1974 would apply; that as regards the land covered by tank is concerned, compensation is to be paid under Section 15 of the Act read with Second Schedule to the Act; that even in the order dt.17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal had reiterated the obligation on the part the State to fix compensation for the tank bed of Acs.201.29 cents; that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda pursuant to the order of the Appellate Tribunal in LRA.No.2 of 1999 dt.17.09.2004 had adjudged the compensation for the tank bed, tank-bund and fruit bearing trees at Rs.2,08,50,811/- and requested the Collector to refer the matter to the Government to obtain funds so that he could initiate action under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that the Collector erroneously rejected the same on 05.10.2005; that petitioner then approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda on 07.11.2005 seeking exemption of the extent of Acs.201.29 cents covered by the tank ; that the primary Tribunal on 30.11.2005 allowed the said application rightly and exempted the said extent from the land of declarant; that unfortunately, the appellate Tribunal by its order dt.29.06.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006 set aside this order; but while doing so, it again reiterated that the declarant is entitled to compensation for the tank bed in view of the directions given by the appellate Tribunal in LRA.No.2 of 1999; that when the matter went back to the primary Tribunal, the primary Tribunal without properly appreciating the effect of the order dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990, order dt.17.9.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999 and order dt.29.6.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006 , perversely rejected the claim for compensation for the tank bed as per Act 10 of 1977; that the order dt.09.05.2007 of the primary Tribunal was erroneously confirmed in the order dt.20.11.2008 in LRA.No.1 of 2007 by the appellate Tribunal; that the appellate Tribunal could not have expressed any opinion on the previous orders in LRA.No.2 of 1990, LRA.No.2 of 1999 and LRA.No.1 of 2006 since the said orders had not been challenged by the State; and therefore, the orders in LRA.No.2 of 1990, LRA.No.2 of 1999 and LRA.No.1 of 2006 of the appellate Tribunal be implemented, declaring that petitioner is entitled either for exemption of the extent of Acs.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 from his holding or to the compensation in respect of the said land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in view of proviso to Section 7 (5) of Act 10 of 1977. He further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others (2004) 7 SCC 261 ) and contended that orders of courts or tribunals which have attained finality and which have not been challenged, have to be complied with and their correctness cannot be examined in a subsequent proceeding before the same Forum (appellate Tribunal) but can only be agitated before a higher Forum. 35. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the computation of excess holding of the declarant had become final on 28.9.1976 itself in LRA No.42/1978 as Acs.12.3944 SH ; the plea that the land covered by the tank of extent Acs.201.29 cents has to be exempted from his holding was not raised by declarant in the proceedings leading to this decision except in LRA 42 of 1978 for the first time; that the decision in LRA 42/1978 rejecting this plea was not questioned by declarant and it had also become final; that it is not open for the declarant to urge the said contention in proceedings under Section 10 of the Act and seek to re-open the computation of holding which had attained finality; that declarant had not urged about the claim for exemption of the land covered by the tank even in the application filed by him before the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda in 1978 when he sought the benefit under Section 4-A of the Act; that in view of this, the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda did not go into the said issue in its order dt.20.03.1978. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda in 1978 when he sought the benefit under Section 4-A of the Act; that in view of this, the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda did not go into the said issue in its order dt.20.03.1978. He further contended that on 23.02.1989 itself, the Tribunal had determined the compensation payable for the entire land (including the land covered by the tank) surrendered by declarant as Rs.7,500/-, but in its order dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990, the Tribunal erred in directing the primary Tribunal to pay compensation again for the land covered by tank; that in the subsequent order dt.05.10.1998, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda, Anantapur calculated the compensation payable for the tank-bund as well as fruit bearing trees, apart from compensation for the land in the tank bed along with other surrendered land as Rs.1,93,800/-, and the said amount was also paid to declarant at regular intervals which he received without any protest; that even in the order dt.17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999, the appellate Tribunal erred in directing the primary Tribunal to fix up compensation for the tank bed and again pay it; that both the orders in LRA.No.2 of 1990, dt.05.02.1996 and LRA.No.2 of 1999, dt.17.09.2004 are erroneous and contrary to law; that the Revenuein LRA.No.2 of 1990, dt.05.02.1996 and LRA.No.2 of 1999, dt.17.09.2004 are erroneous and contrary to law; that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda in his proceeding dt.03.09.2005 could not have calculated compensation payable to declarant by applying the proviso to Section 7(5) of the Act 10 of 1977 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and determine the compensation as Rs.2,08,50,811/-; the proposal of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda sent to the District Collector, Anantapur in his proceedings dt.03.09.2005 was rightly rejected by the Collector in his proceedings dt.05.10.2005; thereafter, the petitioner could not have again filed an application dt.07.11.2005 seeking exemption of Acs.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 covered by the tank before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda and the said Tribunal could not have allowed the said application on 30.11.2005; that the said order dt.30.11.2005 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda was rightly set aside in LRA.No.1 of 2006 by the appellate Tribunal but while doing so, the appellate Tribunal could not have directed fixing up of compensation for the said extent covered by the tank bed; that the primary Tribunal rightly declined to pay any compensation to the declarant in its order dt.09.05.2007 and the said order was rightly confirmed by the appellate Tribunal in its order dt.20.11.2008 in LRA.No.1 of 2007; that there is no error in the order dt.20.11.2008 in LRA.No.1 of 2007 and that the appellate Tribunal rightly held that the earlier orders in LRA.No.2 of 1990 and LRA.No.2 of 1999 directing fixation of compensation to the declarant cannot be sustained. He contended that in order to entitle the declarant to claim compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 all the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Section 7 (5) of Act 10 of 1977 need to be fulfilled ; unless there is a change in the computation of the holding of the declarant pursuant to re-computation of his holding under Section 7 (1) of the Act and as a result of such re-computation, the holding of the declarant is reduced and land which was previously surrendered by the declarant would have to be re-delivered to the declarant and it is not possible to so re-deliver it to the declarant, then only, on the recommendation of the Collector (that it would cause hardship to the allottee or transferee of the land), with the approval of the Government , compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be payable; that there is no change in the computation of the holding of the declarant at all after 28.9.1976; and therefore, there was no question of permitting the declarant to get any compensation for the land covered by the tank bed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by giving him the benefit of proviso to Section 7 (5) of the Act. 36. I have noted the submissions of both sides. 37. As per the scheme of the Act, the notified date is 01.01.1975. Section 4 of the Act directs that the ceiling area, in the case of a family unit consisting of not more than five members, shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding. The standard holding for different classes of lands and its computation is prescribed by Section 5 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act mandates that holders of agricultural land would have to file a declaration before the prescribed authority (i.e., the primary Tribunal) as to the extent of their holding. The primary Tribunal, on receipt of the declaration filed by the holder of the land under Section 8, would make an enquiry and pass an order determining whether the declarant holds on the notified date any land in excess of the ceiling area, and if so, the extent of land so held in excess, as on that date. The primary Tribunal, on receipt of the declaration filed by the holder of the land under Section 8, would make an enquiry and pass an order determining whether the declarant holds on the notified date any land in excess of the ceiling area, and if so, the extent of land so held in excess, as on that date. Under Section 10 of the Act, the extent of holding of the declarant which is in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act is liable to be surrendered to the State. Under Section 15 of the Act, compensation for the land (which was surrendered by the declarant and which had vested in the State) would be computed as per rates specified in the Schedule II to the Act and would be paid to the declarant. The lands so vested in the State on surrender by a declarant would be disposed of by allotting to one or other of the categories of persons mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. This is the scheme of the Act. 38. Certain lacunae were noticed in the Act after its enactment. Therefore, the State Legislature thought it fit to amend it. It therefore enacted the A.P.Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 i.e., Act 10 of 1977. Section 7 of Act 10 of 1977 reads as follows: “7. This is the scheme of the Act. 38. Certain lacunae were noticed in the Act after its enactment. Therefore, the State Legislature thought it fit to amend it. It therefore enacted the A.P.Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 i.e., Act 10 of 1977. Section 7 of Act 10 of 1977 reads as follows: “7. Special provisions for cases affected by the provision of the principal Act as amended by this Act : Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, -- (1) where, in any case to which the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act are applicable, the tribunal has determined under section 9 of the principal Act, the extent of land in excess of the ceiling area (hereafter in this section referred to as ‘the excess land’) before the date on which the assent of the President to this Act is first published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as “the said date”) but a proceeding in respect thereof under section 10 of the principal Act is pending before the tribunal on the said date, the tribunal may, suo motu and shall, on an application made in this behalf by any person affected, determine the excess land under section 9 of the principal Act afresh, or approve a surrender of the excess land made by the person concerned afresh, or as the case may be, select the land to be surrendered, under section 10 of the principal Act afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act; (2) where, any proceeding which is affected by the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act is pending before the appellate tribunal or the High Court on the said date, the appellate tribunal or the High Court may, suo motu and shall, on an application made in this behalf by the person affected, remand the case relating to such proceeding to the tribunal, for fresh determination of excess land, or for approval of fresh surrender of excess land, or as the case may be, for fresh selection of the land to be surrendered, in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act; (3) In any case not provided in clauses (1) and (2) of this section any person, to whom the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act are applicable, may within sixty days from the said date file an application before the tribunal for fresh determination of the excess land under section 9 of the principal Act or approval of the surrender of excess land under section 10 of the principal Act; (4) The provisions of the principal Act shall apply to every case falling under clause (1) or clause (2) or clause (3) of this section as if the fresh determination of excess land or approval of fresh surrender of excess land, or as the case may be, selection of the land to be surrendered, made thereunder were made under section 9, or as the case may be, under section 10, of the principal Act; (5) Where, as a result of the fresh determination of excess land or approval of fresh surrender of excess land or selection of the land to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, any land vested in the Government to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, any land vested in the Government under section 11 of the principal Act is to be re-transferred to the person who surrendered such land, the land shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, be retransferred to such person, on repayment of the amount paid to him by the Government in respect of that land, and where such land was allotted or transferred to any person in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the principal Act prior to the said date, it shall be lawful for the District Collector to resume the land from the person to whom the land is so allotted or transferred and in lieu thereof allot or transfer to the allottee or transferee any other land vesting in the Government, subject to the provisions of section 14 aforesaid: Provided that where the District Collector considers that the resumption of such land is likely to cause undue hardship to the allottee or transferee thereof, he shall, subject to the approval of the Government, pay to the person, who is entitled to receive the amount in respect of the land under the principal Act, in lieu of retransferring the land, a sum equal to the amount that would have been payable for such land as if a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued for the acquisition of that land on the first day of January, 1975, after deducting the amount already paid to him in respect thereof.” 39. This Amendment Act 10/1977 received the assent of the President of India on 29.4.1977 and the said assent was first published on 30.4.1977 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. WHETHER THE DECLARANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OF LAND COVERED BY THE TANK FROM COMPUTATION OF HIS HOLDING? 40. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that the determination of the excess holding of the declarant under Section 9 of the Act was initially made on 28.9.1976 by the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Ananthapur in LRA.No.86/1976 and batch as 12.3944 SH. It is not in dispute that the land covered by the tank, i.e., the extent of Acs.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 R.Locherla Village of Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District was also shown in the declaration filed by declarant under section 8 of the Act and was taken into account while determining the excess holding of the declarant. 41. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of Act 10/1977 (extracted supra) directs that in case the provisions of the principal Act as amended by Act 10 of 1977 are applicable to a declarant, then notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, the primary Tribunal has to redetermine the holding of the declarant, provided it had previously determined the holding of the declarant under Section 9 of the Act prior to 30.04.1977 and a proceeding under Section 10 was pending before the primary Tribunal on the said date. If proceedings under the Act in respect of computation of the holding of the declarant were pending before an appellate Tribunal, then sub-section (2) of Section 7 of Act 10, 1977 provides that such appellate Tribunal may suo motu or shall, an application made on that behalf by the person affected, remand the case to the primary Tribunal for fresh determination of the excess land. 42. 42. Section 4-A of the Act (introduced by Act 10 of 1977) provided that when an individual land holder has major son/sons and such major son/s hold/s no land or holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then the ceiling area, in the case of such individual computed in accordance with section 4 of the Act, shall be increased in respect of each such major son by an extent of land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such major son, by the extent of land by which the land held by such major son falls short of the ceiling area. 43. The declarant felt that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 4-A of the Act (introduced by Act 10 of 1977) since he had six major sons on the notified date, and each of such major sons would be entitled to hold one standard holding by virtue of Section 4-A. So, he filed an application before the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal in 1978 to re-open the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act and re-determine his holding by applying Section 4-A and sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. The primary Tribunal, did gave him negligible relief in its order dt.20.03.1978 but in the order dt.5.5.1978 in LRA.No.42 of 1978, the declarant and his sons were held entitled to the full benefit of Section 4-A and the holding of the declarant was reduced from 12.3944 SH to 9.4970 SH excess. 44. In Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Varadaraja Gopala Krishna Yachandra Bahadur Varu (2 supra), this Court had decided that land covered by a tank cannot be treated as “land” as defined in Section 3(j) of the Act and cannot be computed to the holding of a declarant. The declarant wanted to take advantage of this decision by seeking exclusion of Ac.201.29 cts covered by the tank in Sy.No.60/2 from his holding. But he did not raise this plea in the proceedings initiated by him before Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda in 1978 (invoking Section 4-A). If the declarant felt that the extent of land covered by the tank could not have been computed to his holding, he ought to have also urged this point. But he did not raise this plea in the proceedings initiated by him before Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda in 1978 (invoking Section 4-A). If the declarant felt that the extent of land covered by the tank could not have been computed to his holding, he ought to have also urged this point. After the Addl.Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Penukonda passed order on 20.3.1978 rejecting the plea under Section 4-A, he filed appeal LRA.No.42/1978 before the Land reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ananathapur. Such a plea was raised for the first time in this appeal. 45. The appellate Tribunal in its order dt.05.05.1978 in LRA.No.42/1978 rejected his plea of exclusion of land covered by tank and only granted the relief claimed by him and his sons under Section 4-A of the Act. This order of the appellate Tribunal was not challenged in Revision before this Court by the declarant and it attained finality. Thus, the computation of holding of the declarant stood finalized as 9.4970 SH. 46. It may be that the said appeal LRA.No.42/1978 was not pending as on 30.9.1977 and may be the appellate Tribunal could not have given the declarant any relief in view of express language in sub-section (2) of section 7 of Act 10 of 1977. But the declarant ought to have sought it in his application filed before the Addl. Revenue Divisional officer, Land Reforms, Penukonda in 1978 (when he sought benefit under Section 4-A by invoking sub-section (1) of section 7 of Act 10 of 1977). Unless he raises it there and invites a decision by the said primary tribunal on the allowing of exemption for the land covered by the tank from his holding, he cannot blame the appellate tribunal for denying it. No explanation is forthcoming from the declarant why he did not claim it before the primary tribunal. He therefore is estopped from raising the said plea at a later stage particularly when he did not challenge the order dt.5.5.1978 in LRA.No.42/1978. 47. It may be that the declarant was under an impression that the extent of the tank bed land would not be computed to his holding. There is no evidence of any assurance given by the State that it would exclude this land from his holding. 48. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced in the computation of his holding as 9.4970 SH. There is no evidence of any assurance given by the State that it would exclude this land from his holding. 48. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced in the computation of his holding as 9.4970 SH. So it was not open to the declarant again to make a request on 07.11.2005 for exemption of this land covered by the tank from his holding. In this view of the matter, the primary tribunal in it’s order dt.30.11.2005 could not have exempted this land from his holding. In my opinion, the said order was rightly set aside by the appellate Tribunal in its order dt.29.06.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006. WHETHER THE DECLARANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR LAND COVERED BY THE TANK ? 49. According to the declarant, he was given an impression by the authorities under the Act that he would be paid compensation for the above extent of land covered by the tank and, therefore, he did not specifically pursue the matter as regards seeking exemption of this land from his holding. 50. On 23.02.1989, the primary Tribunal determined that the declarant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,500/- for the extent of Acs.615.49 cents of land surrendered by him to the State on 17.01.1979. This extent included the extent of Acs.201.29 cents covered by the tank. 51. The matter should have ended there but when the declarant questioned this order dt.23.02.1989 in LRA.No.2 of 1990 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur contending that he was not paid compensation for fruit bearing trees, tank and tankbund, the Government Pleader appearing for the State conceded that the primary Tribunal had not fixed compensation for these items and stated that he had no objection to remand the matter for fresh disposal to fix compensation payable to the declarant in respect of these items. On the basis of this concession, the appellate Tribunal held that the calculation made by the primary Tribunal on 23.02.1989 is not correct and it should re-calculate the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees, tank and tank-bund as per Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Rules, 1974. This order was not challenged by the State and has attained finality. 52. Thereafter, the primary Tribunal again passed an order on 05.10.1998. This order was not challenged by the State and has attained finality. 52. Thereafter, the primary Tribunal again passed an order on 05.10.1998. In this order, it determined the value of the tank-bund as Rs.1,60,800/- and value of the trees as Rs.25,500/- but it stated that the amount payable to the land in the tank bed along with surrendered land continued to be only Rs.7,500/-. It therefore fixed the total value of compensation payable as Rs.1,93,800/- and directed the said amount be payable at the rate of 12% per annum. 53. The declarant again questioned this determination in LRA.No.2 of 1999 before the appellate Tribunal, Anantapur. He contended that only for tank-bund and fruit bearing trees compensation was computed, but compensation was not determined for the tank bed, i.e., the extent of Acs.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2. Again the Government Pleader for the State conceded that the State would pay compensation to the tank bed and that the matter be remanded to the primary Tribunal directing fixing up of compensation for the tank bed. Thus there was again a declaration that the declarant is entitled for compensation as regards tank bed. This order has also not been challenged by the State and had become final. 54. In its order dt.29.06.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006 also, the appellate Tribunal, while setting aside the order dt.30.11.2005 of the primary tribunal exempting the land covered by the tank from holding of the declarant, again remanded the matter back to the primary Tribunal to dispose of the matter as per the directions given in the order dt.17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999 by fixing up compensation for the tank bed. 55. In the light of the orders dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990 and LRA.No.2 of 1999 dt.17.09.2004 (both of which were passed on a concession by the State) that it would pay compensation for the tank bed, and which have attained finality, it is not open to the State to now contend that the amount of Rs.7,500/- already calculated on 23.02.1989 has to be treated as the compensation payable in respect of the tank bed also and that there was no necessity to determine the compensation for the tank bed land again. Both the orders dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990 and 17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999 mandate the primary Tribunal to determine compensation for the tank bed again. Both the orders dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990 and 17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999 mandate the primary Tribunal to determine compensation for the tank bed again. Even if the said orders are wrong, they still have to be implemented since they have attained finality. 56. In Prithawi Nath Ram (4 supra), the Supreme Court, while explaining how to deal with an application for contempt, observed that the court is only concerned with the question whether the decision in the suit had already attained finality or had been complied with or not, and it is not permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. Even if there is any ambiguity or indefiniteness in the said order, the party concerned should approach a higher court, if according to him, the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before a higher court and it is not open to the court exercising contempt jurisdiction to take upon itself the power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. The Court clarified that if any party is aggrieved by the order, which in its opinion is wrong, or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court; that rightness or wrongness cannot be urged in contempt proceedings; right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed; and flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. 57. Although these observations were made in the context of exercise of power in contempt jurisdiction, their relevance to the present situation cannot be doubted. In my opinion it is not open for the Government Pleader to contend in these Revisions, that the orders in LRA.No.2 of 1990 and LRA.No.2 of 1999 are contrary to law or that the directions therein (that compensation in respect of tank bed should be fixed) are erroneous on the ground that previously a sum of Rs.7,500/- has been determined in proceedings dt.23.02.1989 as compensation for the entire surrendered land including the land covered by the tank bed. In fact the said order dt.23.2.1989 was set aside in the order dt.5.5.1996 in LRA.No.2/1990. If the State is allowed to take such a stand it would be amounting to permitting set aside in the order dt.5.5.1996 in LRA.No.2/1990. If the State is allowed to take such a stand it would be amounting to permitting the State to flout the said orders. A collateral attack on these orders is impermissible when there is no direct challenge to these orders in the High court by the State. Therefore, even if the said orders are in some way not legally tenable, full weight has to be given to them. So the State is bound to implement them and cannot resile from them. 58. Thus, as per the order dt.05.02.1996 in LRA.No.2 of 1990, order dt.17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999, and order dt.29.6.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006, the State/primary Tribunal is bound to fix compensation in respect of the extent of land covered by the tank bed. WHETHER COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE TO DECLARANT UNDER THE CEILING ACT OR UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894? 59. The next question is on what basis this compensation is to be calculated in respect of the land covered by the tank bed. Should the compensation be paid as provided in Section 15 of the Act read with Schedule II thereof (or) should it be paid under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by applying proviso to Section 7 (5) of Act 10 of 1977? 60. In my opinion, it is not open to the declarant to seek payment of compensation for this extent of Ac.201.29 cts in Sy.No.60/2 covered by the tank under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the following reasons. 61. A reading of sub-section (5) to section 7 of Act 10 of 1977 shows that the question of applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to compute and pay compensation to the declarant would arise only if (i) there is change in the computation of the holding of the declarant as a consequence to the re-determination of the holding of a declarant by applying Act 10 of 1977, (ii) as a consequence of such re-computation, land was liable to be returned to the declarant, and (iii) it is not possible to do so, because of the allottee or transferee thereof being put to hardship. These conditions have to be fulfilled. 62. In the present case, there was no doubt a change in the holding of the declarant occurred when he was given benefit of Section 4- A of the Act (introduced by Act 10 of 1977) and his holding, which had previously been determined as 12.3944 SH on 28.9.1976, got reduced to 9.4970SH. But this did not result in the declarant being a non-surplus holder entitled to return of land covered by the tank. There was no exclusion of the land covered by the tank from his holding. Reduction in his holding happened only on account of giving him and his sons benefit of section 4-A of the Act. So there is no question of computing compensation for this land covered by the tank under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because he could not get return of it as it continued to be included in his holding. 63. However, this does not mean that the declarant is not entitled to compensation for the land covered by the tank bed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings) Act, 1973. Section 15 read with Schedule II provide for the method of computation of compensation in respect of the land surrendered by a declarant. So it is incumbent upon the primary Tribunal to compute compensation payable to the declarant in respect of the land covered by the tank bed, i.e., Acs.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Interest was held payable in respect of compensation payable under the Act @12% p.a in V.Ramachandra Reddy and Others v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (1995) 3 ALT 203 (DB). So it ought to be paid with interest @12% p.a from the date of taking possession i.e 17.1.1979 till date of payment. 64. I am also of the opinion that the order dt.29.06.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006 insofar as it held that the appellant is entitled to compensation as per the directions contained in the order dt.17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999 of the LRAT, Anantapur is correct and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of it’s revisional jurisdiction. 65. I am also of the opinion that the order dt.29.06.2006 in LRA.No.1 of 2006 insofar as it held that the appellant is entitled to compensation as per the directions contained in the order dt.17.09.2004 in LRA.No.2 of 1999 of the LRAT, Anantapur is correct and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of it’s revisional jurisdiction. 65. Therefore, CRP.No.1139 of 2010 is disposed of directing the primary Tribunal to compute compensation for the extent of Acs.201.29 cents in Sy.No.60/2 of R.Locherla Village of Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District covered by the tank as per the provisions of Section 15 read with Schedule II to the Act within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay the same to the petitioner with interest @12% p.a. from the date of taking possession i.e.17.1.1979 till date of payment. 66. The orders in LRA.No.2 of 1990 and 2 of 1999 having attained finality, and both the orders having been passed on a concession by the Government Pleader that the State would pay compensation for the land covered by the tank, it was not open to the appellate Tribunal in it’s order dt.20.11.2008 in LRA.No.1/2007 to hold that the directions in LRA.No.2/1990 and LRA.No.2/1999 need not be followed and that the payment of Rs.7,500/- already made by State covered the compensation payable for the land covered by the tank bed also. However, insofar as it held that the appellant now cannot seek exemption of the land covered by the tank from his holding, the said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court since the reason given by it in support of the said view is correct. 67. Therefore, CRP.No.5671 of 2008 is allowed and the order dt.20.11.2008 in LRA.No.1 of 2007 is set aside insofar as it directed that the primary Tribunal need not grant any compensation to the declarant in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.60/2 is concerned 68. In view of the above, CRP.No.1139 of 2010 is disposed of with directions set out in para 63 and CRP.No.5671 of 2008 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 69. In view of the above, CRP.No.1139 of 2010 is disposed of with directions set out in para 63 and CRP.No.5671 of 2008 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 69. Since the State, having conceded to pay compensation to the petitioner for land covered by tank in LRA.No.2/1990 and LRA No.2/1999, deliberately and wantonly did not comply with the orders passed therein and did not compute and pay compensation to the petitioner, it shall pay costs of Rs.5000/- in each of the Revisions to the petitioner. 70. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.