( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. M. V. Durga Prasad.

( 2 ) MR. M. V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are real brothers of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed declaration in L. C. C. No. 1146/elr/75 under Section 8 of the A. P. Land reforms Act on behalf of his family unit consisting of himself, his wife, a minor son and a minor daughter. The Primary Tribunal by its order dated 15-11-1976 determined the holding of respondent No. 2 and held that he holds an extent of land equivalent to 0. 2914 and later under order dated 18-12-1978 to 0. 2800 S. H. , in excess of the ceiling area. This holding was arrived at in the light of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L. R. A. No. 593/77, dated 4-12-1978.

( 3 ) AGAINST the said order, respondent No. 2 filed a revision before this Court in C. R. P. No. 5499/1979 but the same was dismissed on 4-3-1980 and the order of the lower Tribunal was confirmed. The Land Reforms Tribunal after issuing form VI notice selected some of the land specified in the schedule, after following the due procedure, against which, respondent No. 2 filed L. R. A. No. 23/85 and the same was dismissed on 21-6-1984 holding all opportunities were given and the relevant rules were complied with. Later, he filed a petition before the Primary Tribunal under Rule 16 (5) (b) of the A. P. Land Reforms act (sic Rules) alleging that G. O. Ms. No. 813, dated 19-6-1975 is applicable to the lands situated in drought prone area and the benefit of holding of 12 1/2 enhancement of ceiling area has to be given to him. The Primary Tribunal has given benefit of the said G. O. and redetermined the holding of the respondent No. 2 at 0. 1586 S. H. to be in excess of the ceiling area. After issuing relevant notices, the Government proposed to take over the lands of Ac. 6. 68 in R. S. No. 85/2 of Krishnapuram Village. Again the second respondent preferred an appeal in L. R. A. No. 14 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 14-12-1992.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the Appeal L. R. A. No. 14 of 89, the petitioners have filed the appeal L. R. A. No. 1 of 1993 alleging that Ac. 46. 40 situated in r. S. No. 85 of Krishnapuram village is a joint family property wherein each of them has a share, and that the Primary Tribunal is not correct in computing the land solely in the holding of respondent No. 2. In fact, respondent no. 2 has only 1/8th share, and under the guise of the order of the Tribunal the Government is about to take their lands. Since they have no notice at any stage of the proceedings, the entire proceedings are not binding on them and prayed to set aside the determination of the land in favour of respondent no. 2, and the same has to be redetermined.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally these lands were part of the State and lease was granted in the name of respondent no. 2 for the benefit of the entire joint family and not for his personal benefit, but as the petitioners are the native of Krishnapuram village, due to their avocation, they are residing at different places, and as such, they did not file declaration as contemplated under the A. P. Land Reforms Act though they were enjoying the benefits from the land as co-sharers. It is also urged before wme that respondent No. 2 has sold certain portions of the land in 1986 and in the sale deeds the petitioners are shown as co-vendors along with respondent No. 2 under Exs. A-1 and A-2. That itself shows that the property is joint family property and the lease and the patta which stood in the name of respondent No. 2 was actually for the benefit of the family. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of respondent No. 2 has to be redetermined.

( 6 ) HE relies on sub-section (sic sub-rule) (7) of Rule 16 of the A. P. Landreforms Rules, 1974 which reads as lander : "any person, other than a party who satisfies the Revenue Divisional