( 1 ) THESE revision petitions have been preferred by the declarant in C. C. No. 2242/ alg/75 of the Sub Collector, Nandyal, against the orders of the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, dated 26-7-1999, in lr. A. No. 34 of 1994 and 35 of 1994. The declarant was a surplus holder, therefore, he surrendered certain lands and they were assigned to the respondents in both these revision petitions prior to 30-4-1977 and the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 1-2-1980 the Land reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the declarant covered by l. R. A. No. 123 of 1979, holding him as a non-surplus holder. The declarant filed an application on 28-6-1993 for redelivery of the surrendered lands. Therefore, on 16-9-1993, the Sub Collector, Nandyal, passed an order, directing the restoration of the lands, which were assigned to the respondents. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 16-9-1993 preferred L. R. A. No. 34 of 1994 and 35 of 1994 before the Land reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool. The land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals, by observing that the declarant kept quite for more than 12 years without claiming redelivery of the lands in pursuance of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and as the appellants are in possession of the lands for more than 12 years, the declarant is not entitled to redelivery of the lands. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal in both the appeals, preferred these revisions questioning the validity and legality of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the declarant is entitled to retransfer of the land vested in the government under Rule 10-A of the Rules and he drew the attention of this Court to the provision covered by Rule 10-A (5) which reads as follows:"rule 10-A (5): Where, as a result of the orders passed by the Appellate tribunal on an appeal filed under section 20 or by the High Court on an application for revision filed under section 21 of the Act, any land vested in the Government under Section 11 is to be retransferred to the person who surrendered such land, the Tribunal shall pass an order to the effect that the said person is entitled to transfer of such land and it shall specify the extent of such land and also the amount, if any, to be repaid by him to the government in respect of that land and communicate the order to the Revenue divisional Officer. "

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents while conceding that the procedure contemplated under Rule 10-A (5) is applicable in cases where the appeal was filed under Section 20 and when the declarant was held as a non-surplus holder, the land surrendered by the declarant has to be retransferred to him under Section 11 of the Act. But since the order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 4-A of the Act, Rule 10-A (3) applies and on application of the said Rule the necessary order has to be passed by the Collector concerned and the order was passed by the sub-Collector is not a valid one and it is liable to be set aside. Section 4-A of the Act reads as follows:"section 4-A: Notwithstanding anything in Section 4, where an individual or an individual who is a member of a family unit, has one or more major sons any such major son either by himself or together with other members of the family unit of which he is a member, holds no land or holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then, the ceiling area, in the case of the said individual or the family unit of which the said individual is a member computed in accordance with Section 4, shall be increased in respect of each such major son by an extent of land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such major son or family unit of which he is a member, or as the case may be, by the extent of land by which the lan