APHC010004862015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Mudunuru Appala Raju & 26 Ors and Others The State Of Ap 87 Ors and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) 2. K R RAMAN APHC010791482015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Mudunuru Appala Raju & 26 Others and Others The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR APPEALS The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1123/2015 Mudunuru Appala Raju & 26 Ors and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap 87 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR APPEALS (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1401/2015 Mudunuru Appala Raju & 26 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1123 AND 1401 OF 2015 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioners are challenging the common judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed in L.R.A.Nos.2 of 2003 and 1 of 2007 by the learned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – Cum – District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by Land Reforms Tribunal – Cum – Revenue Divisional Officer in LCC.No.356 of 1975. 3. Sri. O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the Appellate Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that Thandrangi Village was an Inam Estate. It is also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal framed the following points for consideration; i. Whether the reopening of the case in L.C.C.356/1975 after acceptance of declaration submitted by the declarant Sri P.V.G.Raju U/s.8 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 and after he surrendered his excess holding on 11.05.1977, is permissible under Law ? ii. Whether Sri P.V.G.Raju, parted with Inam Lands in Thandrangi Village before submission of declaration U/s.8 of the A.P.land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973? iii. Whether the order passed by the lower Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside ? 4. The learned senior counsel submits that the Appellate Tribunal held that suomoto reopening of the case and modifying the order dated 11.05.1977 in LCC.No.356 of 1975 is impermissible under law and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Appellate Tribunal having held the point No.1 in 3 favour of the appellants could not have ventured into deciding the other two points. It is submitted that when the Tribunal found that reopening was not permissible. There could have been no occasion for the Tribunal to probe into the other aspects and give a finding. The judgment setting aside the orders in LCC.No.356 of 1975 would be contrary to the findings arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners seeking rights under the Agreement of sale dated 25.07.1967 would have to be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court, however, prima facie brushing aside the petitioners claim without deciding on the validity or otherwise of the agreement of sale by the competent Court is illegal and impermissible under law. 6. It is submitted that the Land Reforms Tribunal – Cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram has categorically held that the material available and the evidence amply proved that rights over 1/3rd share of Inamdar were sold to M.S.N.Raju and 14 others through lawful sale agreement. 7. The dispute raised on the validity of the agreement and the competency of the executant of the agreement could not have been decided by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – Cum – District Judge, Vizianagaram as the scope of the Appellate Tribunal is limited. 8. The learned senior counsel submits that holding of land by the executant of the agreement of sale would have to be considered in terms of Section 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1974. Further reliance is placed on Section 8 of the Act, 1974 and it is 4 submitted that the agreement of sale was executed much prior to the introduction of the Act, 1974. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 submits that the declaration filed by P.V.G.Raju in the year 1975 categorically declared the surplus lands under his holding and that the agreement of sale is a fabricated document which cannot create any rights over the land over which they executed himself does not have title. 10. Much reliance is placed on the submission that the agreement of sale is a electronic typewritten document and submits that as on the date of the agreement of sale electronic typewriters were not available. As such, submits that the said agreement of sale dated 25.07.1967 is a fabricated document and that the Appellate Tribunal had rightly set aside the findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that the respondents 7 to 88 are referred to as not necessary parties to the present Civil Revision Petitions. It is submitted that some of the respondents 7 to 88 passed away and their legal representatives are not brought on record, as such, the CRP ought to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur Vs. Gokul Narain and another1, Odisha 1 AIR 1996 SC 1819 5 State Financial Corporation Vs. Vigyan chemical Industries and Ors2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the legal representatives of the contesting parties would have to be brought on record within the time frame. Non-joinder of necessary parties would render the proceedings a nullity. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Ashrafuddin3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term holding is couched in clear and unambiguous language. The holder of land would include both the owner and the actual possessor. 13. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader for the Appeals. Perused the material on record. 14. The learned Appellate Tribunal has in vivid terms held that suomoto reopening the case and modifying the order dated 11.05.1977 in LCC.No.356 of 1975 is impermissible under law and without jurisdiction. Having held so, this Court finds no grounds for the Appellate Tribunal to give a finding on the second point with regard to whether P.V.G.Raju parted with Inam lands in Thandrangi village before submission of declaration under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. 15. The dispute with regard to validity of the agreement of sale dated 25.07.1967 would have to be left open for the parties/ their legal heirs to the said agreement of sale to redress the dispute before the appropriate and competent Civil Court. 2 MANU/SC/1023/2025 3 (1982) 2 SCC 1 6 16. The competency of the executant of the agreement of sale is a question of fact and Law, which has to be left open for the parties to adduce evidence before the competent Civil Court. Findings of fact would have to be essentially arrived at by the competent Civil Court after considering the documentary and other evidence placed before it. 17. The learned Appellate Tribunal – District Judge erred in exceeding its jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal – Cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram in LCC.No.356 of 1975. 18. The respondents 7 to 88 have not contested before the Land Reforms Tribunal – Cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram or before the Appellate Tribunal – District Judge and they are classified as not necessary parties in the CRPs. As such, there is no necessity for bringing on the legal heirs of the said parties. No valuation would be done by bringing on record the legal representatives of any of the deceased respondents. The respondents 7 to 88 have no locus nor audience to this Court and none of them have so far claimed interest in the proceedings. As such, the objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 is overruled. 19. The common judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed in L.R.A.Nos.2 of 2003 and 1 of 2007 by the learned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – Cum – District Judge, Vizianagaram is hereby set aside. The order passed by the learned Land Reforms Tribunal – Revenue Divisional Officer, 7 Vizianagaram in LCC.No.356 of 1975 dated 09.09.2003 is hereby restored. 20. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 29.12.2025 KGM 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1401 of 2015 and 1123 of 2015 Dated 29.12.2025 KGM