1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks further time to receive instructions. The request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot be considered after the case has become part-heard. The request is accordingly, rejected.

2. There is no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner. The record shows that notice was served on the other side. However, no one filed vakalat on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this revision is disposed of after hearing the counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. This revision arises under the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Land Ceiling Act for short). The case has a long carrier.

4. Sri Nandyala Hanumantha Reddy Gari Linga Reddy, who is the original revision petitioner, was the declarent. His wife and children are the present petitioners. They described themselves as petitioners 2 to 8 herein.

5. Linga Reddy filed a declaration before the Special Tahildar in CC No.3436 /ALG/75. Linga Reddys father, brother and paternal uncles also filed declarations at the same time. In all, nine of them filed declarations in the year 1975. The primary tribunal i.e., the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Allagadda, passed orders on 18.1.1977 holding that Linga Reddy possessed surplus holding to a tune of 0.4378. The paternal uncles of Linga Reddy were also found to possess surplus holding.

6. All the declarants filed separate appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool. The appellate Tribunal reduced the excess holding in respect of the paternal uncles of Linga Reddy. It was the case of Linga Reddy and others that dry lands were treated as double cropped wet lands, so much so, the holding of the declarants became dwindled. The primary tribunal concluded that the lands were double cropped wet lands. The appellate tribunal however, accepted the contention of the appellants in part and determined the lands to be single cropped wet lands.

7. Out of the three paternal uncles of Linga Reddy, two of them became non-surplus land holders on account of the computation of the lands as single cropped wet lands. The other paternal uncle by name Tirupal Reddy still had 0.331 surplus holding. Challenging the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool, Tirupal Reddy filed a revision being CRP No.5799 of 1977 before this Court. The High Court treated the lands in question as dry lands. On account of such treatment, Tirupal Reddy also fell within the ceiling limit. CRP No.5799 of 1979 consequently, was allowed on 07.07.1979.

8. Linga Reddy subsequently filed CRP No.1401 of 1981 claiming that his lands also may be treated as dry lands on par with the lands of Tirupal Reddy. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool, passed orders on 21.6.1978 rejecting the request of Linga Reddy. Linga Reddy preferred a revision before the High Court in the year 1981. The High Court dismissed the revision in limine on 05.04.1983 on the ground that the revision was time barred.

9. The next round of litigation commenced when Linga Reddy involved Rule 16 of the Land Reforms Rules on 16.5.1983. Linga Reddy re-approached the primary Tribunal for re-classification of the lands in view of Rule 16(v) (b) of the Rules. The Primary Tribunal through orders dt.31.3.1988 reduced the excess holding from 0.4378 to 0.3081. The Special Tahsildar, who is the authorized officer assailed the orders of the primary tribunal dt.31.3.198 before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal passed orders on 12.11.1990 holding that the lands were not dry lands, so much so, Linga Reddy again became the holder of excess land of 0.4378 holding. Questioning the order of the appellate tribunal, Linga Reddy preferred CRP No.576 of 1991 before this Court. It was contended at that time by Linga Reddy that by the appointed date, Linga Redys wife was pregnant and that in the declaration Linga Reddy disclosed the fact that his wife was pregnant. He contended that on account of the birth of a child, subsequently, the family unit of Linga Reddy became enlarged. The High Court allowed the revision in part through orders dt.17.8.1993. The High Court held that Linga Redy was not entitled to seek for re-classification of single crop wet land as dry land. The High Court however, held that the child of Linga Reddy shall be taken into consideration as the wife of Linga Reddy was pregnant by the appointed date i.e., 01.01.1975. The primary authority thereafter was directed to reconsider the claim of Linga Reddy.

10. The case went back before the primary tribunal again. It may be recalled that Linga Reddy, along with his brothers, father and paternal uncles filed declaration on 08.04.1975. It is the case of Linga Reddy that his wife gave birth to a child on 11.8.1975 and that she consequently, should be considered to be pregnant by 1.1.1975. The primary tribunal allowed the claim of Linga Reddy through orders dt.16.3.1996. Benefit to the child in the womb was given to Linga Reddy.

11. Eswaramma is the sister of Ligna Reddy. Rama Chandra Reddy and Ramakrishna Reddy are the sons of Eswaramma. While the case was before the primary tribunal after the orders of the High Court in CRP No.576 of 1991, Ramachandra Reddy and Ramakrishna Reddy wanted to come on record claiming that Eswramma was not allotted share, that she be allotted a share and to compute the same in the holding of Ramachandra Reddy and his brother Ramakrishna Reddy. The primary tribunal gave benefit to Eswarammas holding. In the process, Linga Reddy came within the ceiling limit. The application of Linga Reddy consequently, was allowed by the primary tribunal declaring that Linga Reddy did not possess excess holding.

12. Once again the Special Tahsildar filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. Through the impugned order, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Special Tahsildar through orders dt.1.2.2000 and dismissed the claim of legal representatives of Linga Reddy. It may be recalled that while LRA No.1 of 1996 was pending before the appellate tribunal, Linga Reddy breathed his last and his legal representatives came on record on 20.8.1977.

13. The learned Chairman of the appellate tribunal decided the case although notice were not served upon the legal representatives of Linga Reddy. The appellate Tribunal proceeded by setting aside the legal representatives of Linga Reddy ex-parte, albeit, notices were not served upon them. It is the order of the appellate tribunal dt.1.2.2000 that is assailed now.

14. Sri Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended at the outset that the appellate tribunal could not have passed orders against the legal representative of Linga Reddy ex-parte where notices were not served upon the legal representatives of the deceased Linga Reddy. I am afraid that the course adopted by the appellate tribunal in proceeding to decide the case on merits setting the legal representatives of Linga Reddy ex-parte is not correct and is not justified where notices were not served upon the legal representatives of Linga Reddy informing them that they were proposed to be brought on record before the appellate tribunal. On this count itself, the revision deserves to be allowed setting aside the order of the appellate tribunal.

15. It is also pointed out that the appellate tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default. It was observed by the single Judge of this court in Kura Narasimha Reddy V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Karimnagar (1978(2) APLJ 10) that the land reforms appellate tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default and that the appeal is liable to be disposed of on merits. This is a case where the appeal was not dismissed for default. But the instant case is where the respondents were set ex-parte and orders were passed on merits.

16. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through Sec.22(1) of the Land Ceiling Act. Sec.22(1) of the Land Reforms Act conferred powers of the civil procedure code upon the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal to the extent of summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and the extent of examining any person on oath. This contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is no power for the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal to set the respondents ex-parte and to dispose of the appeal on merits is sustainable in law.

17. Inter alia, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the original declarant Linga Reddy would not possess any surplus holding in the event, his unborn child by the time of the declaration is considered to be an additional member of the family unit and if the holding of Eswaramma and her two sons is counted separately. I however, consider that these aspects are liable for determination by the appellate tribunal afresh. So far as the present revision is concerned, the main petition is whether the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool is sustainable in setting the petitioners ex-parte. Where notices were not served upon them, such an order is not sustainable in law. The order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal consequently deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

18. In the result, the revision is allowed. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool, is directed to hear LRA No.1/1996 afresh and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The tribunal, shall issue notices to both sides before it posts the case for hearing and dispose of the same on merits after hearing both sides. No costs.