( 1 ) WHETHER the agricultural lands transferred by sale or otherwise during the crucial period between 24-1-71 and 2-5-72 falling under Sec. 7 (1) of the A. P. Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) act, 1973 (for short the Act 1/1973) shall be liable for surrender as excess land under sec. 10 of the Act 1/1973 is the nub of the issue mooted in all the revisions by the state.

( 2 ) THE facts in all the revisions lie in a narrow compass: One Sri Marala Venkata rao s/o Agathaiah and his wife Suramma filed declarations in LCCNo. 1257/kda/75 and LCC No. 1181/kda/75 under Sec. 8 of the Act 1/73. As per Sec. 3{f) the husband and wife comprise a family unit. Both the declarations were clubbed together and determined that the declarant was holding excess land equivalent to 8-1020 SH by order dt. 31-10-75. The declarant aggrieved by the orders of the Primary Tribunal filed lra No. 64/75 on the file of Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry and the same was disposed of on 19/6/76. Aggrieved by the same, the declarant filed crp No. 1472/76 in this Court and the same was disposed of on 8-2-77 (1977 (1) aplj 252 ). The declarant further carried the matter in appeal before the Honourable supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2649/77 and the same was dismissed on 11-2-92. Thereafter the declarant filed review petition No. 758/92 in Civil Appeal no. 2649/77 and the same was also dismissed on 13-10-82. After disposal of the review petition, Sec. 10 (3) notice was issued by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 31-7-1992 to the LRs of declarant. The Land Reforms tribunal, Kakinada issued Form No. IX notice on 3-8-92 in respect of the lands of the Velangi Endamarru village. Aggrieved by the issuance of the Form IX notice, the lrs of the declarant filed LRA Nos. 123 and 124 of 1992 and some of the alienees filed lra No. 122/92. The LRs of the declarant filed LRA No. 123/92 against the order dt. 31-7-92 of the Land Reforms Tribunal kakinada in LCC No. 1157/kda/75. The third party objectors filed petitions before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada objecting that their land situated in dharmavaram, Rachapalli and Anuru village cannot be accepted for surrender. The Tribunal by order dt. 22-12-92 rejected their objections, hence they filed appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal. The Land Reforms Appellate tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 22-4-1993 allowed the appeals filed by the third party objectors and held that the lands which were purchased by the third party objectors between 24-1-71 and 2-5-72 are not surrenderable to the State. The appeals filed by the LRs of the declarant were also allowed partly directing to exclude the land covered as per orders in LRA No. 64/75 dt. 19-6-76 and determined the actual surplus after deducting the land as per the benefit given in LRA No. 64/73. Aggrieved by the same, State filed CRP No. 2445/96 and 4226/96.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that all the lands transferred by declarant or his wife on or after 24-1-71 and before 2-5-72 by way of sale etc. , and the purchasers are in possession of the properties purchased by them.

( 4 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State strenuously urged that the Act 1/73 was enacted with the sole object to see that no family unit should possess more land than the ceiling area prescribed. Once the ceiling area is determined for the purpose to taking over the excess land and distribute the same to the landless poor persons towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the constitution of India. Any interpretation with regard to Sec. 7 (1) has to be in consonance with the object sought to be achieved but not to nullify the purpose for which the Act was enacted. According to him, once the ceiling area is determined for the purpose of taking over excess land, there is no bar for taking possession of the excess land which is determined to the holding of the declarant. If the sam