Decided on September 13,1982



- (1.) The only point in thto Revision is whether it would be open to the petitioner herein to agitate against the determination with regard to certain land in respect of its classification made earlier both by the primary tribunal and as confirmed by the appellate tribunal and while confirming the appellate tribunal remanded the matter back to the primary tribunal on points other than the one agitated regarding the classification, without taking the matter in revision to this court in the first instance Itself.
(2.) The case is, the revisionist herein who is the land-holder, filed declaration showing inter alia S No. 565/2 and 564/2 which are admittedly registered, as dry and included in the 'B' schedule of the L.G.O. The primary tribunal classified the same as double crop wet instead of single crop wet. On appeal, the said classification also was confirmed. However, the appellate tribunal for the purpose of due determination in respect of points other than there two lurvey numbers, remanded the matter back to the primary tribunal. Aggrieved against that, appeal wai preferred to the appellate tribunal and since the appellate tribunal did not agree with him, he came up in revision. If may, however, be stated that on remand this point with regard to Classification of theie two survey numbers neither was argued, not could it be argued. There was no revision as against the remand order made by the appellate tribunal. For the first time now on second round by way of a revision in this Court, the very point determined earlier and which became final by the appellate tribunal's decision, it sought to be agitated. It is in thit format of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Poornaiah contends while relying on the decisions 10 Kshitish Chandra vs. Commr. Of Ranchi and Bommakori Papaiah vs. State Of A P. that it ii certainly competent for this court to entertain the point raised herein, though oa the remand order made by the appellate tribunal revision was not filed against at that time. The Supreme Court in Kshitish Chndra vs Commr. Of Ranchi. "It is true that the plaintiff did not come up in appeal before thii Court again it the first judgment of the High Court obviously becaute the order pasted by the High Court was not a final one, but was in the nature of an interlocutory order as the case had been remanded to the Additional Judicial Commissioner and if the said court had affirmed confirmed the finding of the trial court, no question of filing a further appeal to the High Court could have arisen. Thus, the appellant could not be debarred from challenging the validity of the first judgment of the High Court even after the second judgment by the High Court was passed in appeal against the order of remand." This Court in Bommakori Papaiah vs. State Of A .P., which is though not quite analogous to the case on hand, while interpreting Section 20 (3) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act in the light of Section 105 C.P.C., held : "There is also yet another reason why the petitioner herein is not precluded from raising these contentions. Section 105 (2), Civil Procedure, Code, precludes the party aggrieved by the order of remaod from disputing the correctness of the order of remand only if against the order of remand appeal lies he does not prefer an appeal. Under tne Act, no appeal lies against the order made by the Appellate Tribunal, only a revision lies to the High Court. In such a case. Section 105 (2) has no application and it does not debar the party aggrieved from raising those points. The Calcutta High Court in Hari Prosannadatta vs. Hiralal Surendera Kumar, held that, "where aa order remanding the suit is not appealable it cannot be said that the parties are precluded from raising any question at a subsequent stage." For this reason also in my view the order of remand, dated 27th February, 1978 did not preclude the petitioner herein from raising the above three points before the appellate tribunal or take away the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal from considering the same. The petitioner was entitled to raise these questions before the Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) In the light of the decison of the Supreme Court referred to above, by which I am bound, I hold that it is open to this Court in revision for the first time to entertain a point with regard to which on an earlier occasion the matter became final at the appellate tribunal stage, as the said order of the appellate tribunal was not a final one, but was in the nature of interlocutory order, as the case had been remanded to the primary Tribunal. If that is so. the order under revision ii erroneous and the same is set aside by holding that these two survey numbers, which are admittedly registered ts dry and included in the 'B' schedule, will have to be classified as single cropdwet only in the light of several decisions of this Court.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.