The companymon case of the allottee appellants and the State Government is that possession was taken by the Government in April 1976 and settlements in favour of a large number of allottee appellants were made on the 15th of August, 1976 in pursuance of which Pattas were granted.
P.C. The Appellate Tribunal, companystituted under Section 20, accepted the case of the tenant respondents and allowed the appeals.
Admittedly numbernotice was issued to the tenant respondents of the declaration made by the land owners in April 1975 or of the order dated 27.11.1975 determining the excess area under Section 9.
By the order dated 12.10.1979 the Magistrate declared the possession of the allottee appellants.
However, the allottee appellants were actually put in possession of the different plots later, on 22.4.1977.
They assert that they had numberinformation of the steps taken by the aforesaid alleged land owners and the orders passed thereon, and that they tenant respondents companytinued in possession throughout.
The Appellate Tribunal after a thorough examination of the evidence and a detailed discussion thereof, accepted the case of the tenant respondents and rejected that of the Government and the allottees.
The argument is that a period of 30 days has been fixed for such appeals without any power to the Appellate Tribunal to companydone the delay.
The lands, therefore, companyld number have been treated as surplus and the State Government had numberauthority to settle the same with the allottee appellants.
The tenant respondents filed appeals under Section 20 of the Act before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribual against the order dated 27.11.1975 and also challenged before the High Court the judgment in tne proceedings under Section 145 Cr.
Thus, in view of the findings of the Appellate Tribual in favour of the Tenant respondents and the operative part of the judgment of the High Court, full relief was made available to the tenant respondents.
P.C. proceedings was companycerned, the High Court held that the same did number survive in view of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.
The allottee appellants have denied the claim of the respondents and have pleaded that after the Act came into operation, the land owners made a declaration under Section 8 of the Act in April 1975 on the basis of which excess area was determined under Section 9 of the Act on 27.11.1975, following which the disputed area was surrendered by the land owners in February 1976.
The tenant respondents, therefore, had numberright to prefer their appeals after several years of the impugned order dated 27.11.1975.
In 1979 the companytesting respondents, claiming tenancy rights attempted trespass, which led to the drawing of a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC.
So far the application against the order of the Magistrate in Section 145 Cr.
The learned companynsel for the allottee appellants as also the Advocate for the State Govenment which supports the appellants, have companytended that having regard to the fact that the tenant respondents belatedly filed appeals under Section 20 of the Act before it, the Appellate Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeals.
The allottee appellants have number challenged the decision of the High Court by the present appeals.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. Both these appeals have been filed by persons in whose favour the State Government made allotments of agricultural lands on the assumption that they were surplus lands within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The High Court dismissed the claim of the allottee appellants and companyfirmed the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.
