ORDER : BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari District in L.R.A.No.34 of 2008 confirming the order dated 10.11.2008 passed in C.C.No.846/RAP/1975 by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Tenali, on the ground that the Tribunal acted contrary to law and not extended the benefit under Section 4-A of the APLR (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and also that there is an arithmetical error crept in the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bapatla in C.C.No.846/BAP/75 dated 20.03.1978 and the same can be rectified as there is no limitation prescribed for rectification of the said mistakes. 2. Heard Sri SVR.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration. 3. The necessary facts required for adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioner late Sri Sajja Chandramouli filed declaration under Section 8(1) of the AP land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act, 1973') for various lands under the Villages, namely, Upparapalem, Vallabharaopalem, Ponnur, Nidubrole, Irlapadu and Govindapuram. After compliance of statutory requirements and after publication of the notice under Form-IV, the Tahsildars of Bapatla and Narasaraopet conducted local inspections and verifications as required under Rule 2(5) of the Rules and finally, the Land Reforms Tribunal vide its Order dated 20.03.1978 in C.C.No.846/BAP/75 assessed that the declarant is holding an area equivalent to 0.6854 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area under Section 4(1) of the Act which is liable for surrender under Section 10(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, petitioner?s father approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Guntur by filing L.R.A.No.96 of 1978. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, after considering the objections raised by the declarant, allowed the appeal in part vide order dated 25.09.1978 holding that the appellant/declarant is holding lands equivalent to 0.5964 ½ standard holding in excess of the ceiling area and the said orders have become final. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, after considering the objections raised by the declarant, allowed the appeal in part vide order dated 25.09.1978 holding that the appellant/declarant is holding lands equivalent to 0.5964 ½ standard holding in excess of the ceiling area and the said orders have become final. While so, the petitioner herein filed an appeal on 19.12.1997 against the order dated 20.03.1978 alleging that the appellant/ petitioner herein is the third son of the 2 nd respondent (father) and the appellant/ petitioner herein is the owner of the lands in an extent of Ac.14.25½ cents situated in Irlapadu and Govindapuram Villages in Narasaraopet Division and the same were purchased in the name of the appellant/ petitioner herein with the funds of his grandmother (Ammamma) and the said lands are self-acquired properties of the appellant. The appellant pleaded that without his consent and authority, the 2 nd respondent (father) submitted declaration before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Bapatla on his behalf and on behalf of his two major sons. The appellant further pleaded that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal, the appellant had attained majority and while determining the ceiling area, the Land Reforms Tribunal did not make proper enquiry and has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 7 of the Act and had adopted the verification report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Land Reforms Tribunal, Narasaraopet without examining any witnesses. As a result of it, improper clarification, improper holding and improper determination of the ceiling area were occurred and the Land Reforms Tribunal did not give an opportunity to the appellant, thereby violated the provisions of the Act, 1974 and the principles of natural justice. That apart, he also pleaded that the Land Reforms Tribunal acted without jurisdiction and committed material irregularity and failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it. 5. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, in the above said appeal once again considered the issues raised by the petitioner herein and recorded its findings and ultimately, vide order dated 20.01.1998 remanded the matter to the lower Tribunal to rectify and correct the arithmetical mistakes committed by the Land Reforms Tribunal which was pointed out by the appellant and proved by the appellant and also directed to provide an opportunity to the appellant to prove that he is owner of the property to an extent of 14.25 ½ cents. With the said observations, the appeal was allowed remanding the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal for disposing of the same in accordance with law. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the respondent - State preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002 against L.R.A.No.6 of 1996 of 20.01.1998. This Court, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as material on record, was pleased to allow the revision petition directing the Land Reforms Tribunal to dispose of the claim of the appellant by virtue of the Section 4–A of the Act and further clarified that the Tribunal shall not go into reclassification of the lands and compute the holding of the declarant afresh as directed by the appellate court. While allowing the said revision, this court also recorded categorical findings regarding the observation that error in arithmetical calculation in the original order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, holding that the Appellate Court was not correct in directing the Land Reforms Tribunal to rectify and correct arithmetical calculation in regard to the declarations filed by the declarant. “In fact, he did not question the same” and further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Modulla Hussainamma and Others Vs State of AP , 1976 Supreme (AP) 177 and considered Rule 16(7) of the Rules and held that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order of the Appellate Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in regard to the claim of the appellant. Further held that while adjudicating the said question, the definition of family unit as defined under 2(f) of the Act should be kept in mind. It is also observed that as the declarant was none other than father of the petitioner herein and as he was a minor son as such included in definition of family unit, the Tribunal can only go into the aspect in regard to the entitlement of the petitioner by virtue of the Amendment section 4-A inserted by Act 10 of 1977. As the said issue was not answered, this Court had categorically held that the Tribunal has to adjudicate the said issue of section 4-A alone and not to re-open the entire case and reappraise all the questions raised in the Appellate Court. As the said issue was not answered, this Court had categorically held that the Tribunal has to adjudicate the said issue of section 4-A alone and not to re-open the entire case and reappraise all the questions raised in the Appellate Court. The order in regard to classification of the land and calculation of standard holding of the declarant cannot be reopened under the guise of the said order. Relevant paragraphs of the order passed in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002 are extracted hereunder: “7. No doubt the appellant questioned the classification, and other questions alleging that his lands were mistakenly included in the holding of his brother, Ravindrababu, and the same ought not to have been accepted. The appellate Court while directing the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim of the appellant, gave fleeting directions to rectify and correct the arithmetical mistakes committed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, which were pointed out by the appellant though they became final. It also directed the Tribunal to once again adjudicate whether there was any excess land, which was mistakenly computed to the declarant. It opined that there was arithmetical and clerical mistake to an extent equivalent to 0.1717 S.H. Jndisputably, earlier whether the declarant preferred appeal L.R.A.No.96 of 1978, it was held that the declarant was holding surplus land, equivalent to 0.5964 S.H. after considering the question of classification and extent of the lands etc. The same has become final. 8. On the appeal preferred by the appellant, obviously, the entire case cannot be reopened, on the ground that there was a mistake in arriving at the standard holding of the declarant. At the most, the claim of the appellant should be adjudicated, and at any rate, not that of the declarant, who did not agitate nor could have agitated that the findings arrived at in his declaration were mistakenly made. The appellate Court was not correct in directing the lower Tribunal to rectify and correct the arithmetical calculations in regard to the declaration filed by the declarant. In fact, he did not question the same. 9…… 10….. 11. In the light of the decision, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order of the appellate Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in regard to the claim of the appellant. In fact, he did not question the same. 9…… 10….. 11. In the light of the decision, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order of the appellate Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in regard to the claim of the appellant. However, while adjudicating this question, the definition of 'family unit' as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act should be kept in mind. The declarant is no other than his father. The 'minor son' is included in the definition of 'family unit'. Therefore, the question, whether the appellant, by virtue of amendment Section 4-A inserted by Act 10 of 1977, is entitled to any benefit, has to be gone into. This was not answered. The Tribunal has to adjudicate this only question and not to reopen the entire case and reappraise all questions raised in the appellate Court. However, the order in regard to classification of the lands and calculation of the standard holding of the declarant cannot be reopened, under the guise of the orders in the appeal. To that extent, the order is liable to be set aside. 12 In the result, the revision is allowed, directing the lower Tribunal to dispose of the claim of the appellant by virtue of Section 4-A of Act 10 of 1977. However, it is clarified that the Tribunal not to go into reclassification of the lands and compute the holding of the declarant afresh as directed by the appellate Court. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.” 7. With the above observations, this Court had the scope of the adjudication in the proceedings. Pursuant to the orders in the above said Civil Revision Petition, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed an order dated 10.11.2008 and the same was confirmed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 24.01.2013 . 8. It is apposite to place here that while arguing the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions across the bar that he is not pressing for adjudication with regard to the application of provisions under Section 4–A of the amended Act. However, he stressed upon the issue of the errors in arithmetical calculations crept in the order. It is apposite to place here that while arguing the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions across the bar that he is not pressing for adjudication with regard to the application of provisions under Section 4–A of the amended Act. However, he stressed upon the issue of the errors in arithmetical calculations crept in the order. In fact, the Land Reforms Tribunal had considered the provisions of Section 4–A of the amended Act that the sons of an individual who are the members of the family unit must be major sons and such major sons should not own any land or should be owning land to an extent less than ceiling area and Section 4-A is extended to the land up to the ceiling limit and rejected the case of the appellant since he is a minor as on 01.01.1975. 9. In view of the directions of this Court in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002, the Land Reforms Tribunal is not expected to delve into the issue of arithmetical calculation as the same was expressly rejected by this Court in paragraph No.8 of the Order dated 26.09.2007 in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002. 10. Thus, there would be no occasion for the Land Reforms Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to go into the aspect of correction of alleged arithmetical errors as such the Land Reforms Tribunal had not committed any illegality or irregularity while rejecting the said application. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported in Vangapalli Sudhkar Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh , 2001 (4) ALD 90 , wherein it was held that while exercising power under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules, the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal does not interfere with the proceedings under section 10 of the Act which are in the nature execution proceedings. The provision is intended for rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes due to accidental slip or omission. It is made in the interest of the declarants and it should be interpreted very widely and even at the stage of surrender under section 10 of the Act or at the stage of computation, the Tribunal is competent to rectify the mistakes. 12. In fact, in regard to correction of arithmetical mistakes in the order is concerned, there is no bar or limitation prescribed under the rules. 12. In fact, in regard to correction of arithmetical mistakes in the order is concerned, there is no bar or limitation prescribed under the rules. However, the said aspect was considered and orders was passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the above said Civil Revision Petition and the same became final as no further steps were taken by the petitioner challenging the same. As such, the same cannot be now gone into by this Court at this stage. The Land Reforms Tribunal after considering the order passed in the above said civil revision petition had exercised its jurisdiction in the matter and accordingly rejected claim of the petitioner in so far as Section 4-A of the amended Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that he is not pressing for the said relief. It is apt to place here that no document is placed before this Court to establish the said property was purchased by his grandmother in his name and the same is his self-acquired property except placing reliance on the previous orders passed from 1978 onwards. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspect on merits, as in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had categorically held not to reopen all those issues holding that the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in directing the lower Tribunal to rectify and correct the arithmetical calculations in regard to the declarations filed by the declarant. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the findings recorded in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002 are not the findings, they are only passing observations made while disposing of the said revision petition and no ratio was laid down in the said revision petition, as such, the same cannot be called as ratio decidendi. In support of it, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment reported in Arun kumar Aggarwal vs State of MP and Others , AIR 2011 SC 3056 . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: 30. In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555 , this Court has held: "Thus, observations of the Court did not relate to any of the legal questions arising in the case and, accordingly, cannot be considered as the part of ratio decidendi. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: 30. In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555 , this Court has held: "Thus, observations of the Court did not relate to any of the legal questions arising in the case and, accordingly, cannot be considered as the part of ratio decidendi. Hence, in light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, which have well settled the proposition that only the ratio decidendi can act as the binding or authoritative precedent, it is clear that the reliance placed on mere general observations or casual expressions of the Court, is not of much avail to the respondents." 31. In view of above, it is well settled that obiter dictum is a mere observation or remark made by the court by way of aside while deciding the actual issue before it. The mere casual statement or observation which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand does not form the part of the judgment of the Court and have no authoritative value. The expression of the personal view or opinion of the Judge is just a casual remark made whilst deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court. These casual remarks are considered or treated as beyond the ambit of the authoritative or operative part of the judgment. 14. The subject matter in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002 and the subject matter of the present revision is against the same subject declaration. Pursuant to the directions in C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002, the appellate authority passed the order impugned in the present revision petition and recorded a categorical finding that the primary tribunal has to examine as to whether the appellant is entitled for any benefit under Section 4-A of the Act and further observed that the classification of land and calculation of standard holding shall not be reopened. Thus, the point for consideration before the Original Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is limited to examine as to whether the petitioner/ appellant is entitled for any benefit under Section 4-A of the Act or not. However, the issue of application of Section 4-A in the present case, though petitioner had raised certain grounds, made a statement that he is not pressing for the same in the present civil revision petition. 15. However, the issue of application of Section 4-A in the present case, though petitioner had raised certain grounds, made a statement that he is not pressing for the same in the present civil revision petition. 15. As stated above, this Court in the previous round of litigation had limited the scope of consideration by the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, as such, there is no occasion either for the Land Reforms Tribunal in its order dated 10.11.2008 or by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 24.01.2013 to deal with the issue of correction of arithmetical errors as alleged. The issue which was already decided by this Court against the petitioner herein became final as the same was not questioned by the petitioner, as such, he cannot be permitted to re-agitate the very same thing. Thus, the ratio laid down in the above said judgment of Hon?ble Apex Court is of no avail to the petitioner in the present case. 16. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment reported in Kodali Rama Rao Vs The Authorised Officer, LR, Gudivada, Krishna District , 1978 (2) ALT 303 wherein this Court, while dealing with a revision under section 21 of the Act, had admitted the revision petition only on the issue of 'Tarams' relating to the land mentioned therein and with regard to the other contentions, it was dismissed. However, while considering the revision petition for final disposal, it was held that once a revision petition is admitted, the same cannot be restricted to a particular point and it has to look into the impugned order and the petitioner is entitled to urge all the grounds against the order and the scope of revision cannot be restricted to a part of the subject matter or only to certain grounds. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder. “6. Therefore, once a revision petition is admitted, the petitioner is entitled to urge all the grounds against the order appealed and the scope of the revision petition cannot be restricted to part of the subject matter or only to certain grounds. The revision petition having been admitted, the petitioner is entitled to urge all the grounds at the time of final hearing of the said petition, its scope can neither be restricted to certain grounds nor to a part only of the subject matter.” 17. The revision petition having been admitted, the petitioner is entitled to urge all the grounds at the time of final hearing of the said petition, its scope can neither be restricted to certain grounds nor to a part only of the subject matter.” 17. It is not the case in the present revision petition that the revision is restricted to a particular issue. However, in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had recorded a categorical finding and directed not to reopen the issues relating to mistakes or arithmetical errors and the said order became final as the same was not questioned by the petitioner. Basing on the said order, the petitioner had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal and had suffered adverse orders. Now, the petitioner wants to re-agitate the issue which was already settled. As such, the same cannot be allowed or re-agitated as it amounts to sitting in an appeal over the decision already rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 18. Learned counsel also made a submission regarding the power of the High Court for reviewing its own judgment against the orders under section 21 of the Act is unlimited and the Court can review its own judgment if the error is apparent on the face of the record. 19. There is no dispute about the said proposition, however, in the instant case, this Court is not exercising its review jurisdiction over the subject matter and the revision is directed against the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal confirming the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal and the said orders are pursuant to the directions passed in the earlier round of litigation i.e., C.R.P.No.4974 of 2002. As such, this Court cannot now go into the aspect which attained finality. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue of correction of arithmetical errors as alleged cannot be gone into, as such, the civil revision petition fails. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.