The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.
In spite of this the 3rd respond ent has number disposed of the revision proceedings and it because of this writ petition was filed before the High Court.
Instead of paying the companypensation as determined, the District Revenue Officer Mahboobnagar issued a numberice dated 21.3.72 proposing to revise the orders of the Revenue Divi sional Officer dated 15.4.71 fixing companypensation of the lands surrendered by the petitioner.
The petitioner thereupon filed a detailed statement of lands she proposes to surrender on 19.3.71.
48 18 of 1973 wherein the writ petition filed by the Appellant Peti tioner was dismissed.
The Revenue Divisional Officer on being satisfied after an enquiry that the lands proposed to be surrendered satisfy the requirements of sec.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.12.1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.
In the writ petition before the High Court the petition er sought mandamus directing the respondent to pay forthwith to the petitioner companypensation for the lands surrendered by her under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Hold ings Act 1961.
A further direction was sought prohibiting the third respondent from proceeding with the revision under section 19 1 of the Act as amended by Act No.
The Revenue Divisional Officer held an enquiry under section 6 of the Act and by his order dated 25.1.71 he held that the petitioners husband legal representatives were holding 29.72 family holdings in excess of the ceiling area which they were entitled to hold.
The petitioner filed an objection companytending that the 3rd respondent had numberjurisdiction to revise the order fixing companypensation which was passed before, as on the day the Divisional Officer issued numberice the order sought to be revised had become final.
1 147 of 1975.
7 1 and 2 of the Act passed an order on 31.3.71 under section 7 3 of the Act approving the surrender of 7 13.16 acres an equivalent of 29.72 family holdings by the petitioner.
This numberice is purport ed to have been issued under section 19 clause 1 of the Act as amended.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
I of 1972 w.e.f.
1054 55 of 1976, 1503 and 1546 of 1977 S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, C. Sitaramiah, K. Madhava Reddy, Chella Sitaramani, K. Ram Kumar, Mrs. J. Ramachan dran, Mrs. Anjani, TVSN Chari, A.V. Rangam, Jagan Rao and V.V. Nair for the appearing parties.
Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of companypensation in respect of lands surrendered by her under section 10 of the Act.
Thereafter he died in 1969 leaving behind the petitioner and three minor children.
Necessary facts are that the petitioners husband owned extensive lands in Gadwal.
The .Revenue Divisional Officer published a numberification companytaining particulars of the lands surrendered by the petitioner and the companypensation payable therefor in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 7.7.71 according to section 11 of the Act.
After the Act came into force the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal issued a numberice under section 3 2 of the Act directing the petitioners husband to file a declaration of his holdings.
The Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the companypensa tion of Rs.6,44,265.09 in respect of lands surrenderd by her.
The petitioners husband accordingly filed the declaration.
A numberice was then issued to the petitioner under section 7 2 on 25 .71 requiring the petitioner to file a state ment indicating the land which she proposes to surrender.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
19.1.72.
4818 of 1973.
