( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal dated 29-4-1995 in LRA No. 27 of 1995 confirming the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 25-3-1995 passed in LCCNo. 432/mmd/75.

( 2 ) THE petitioner before us claims to be a tenant in the schedule property and subsequently, according to him, he purchased the same in 1978. The declarant who is the 3rd respondent, inspite of notice, did not submit any surrender proposals. The Tribunal, according to the petitioner, selected his land which was in his possession and enjoyment. The petitioner, therefore, submitted his objections, but the Tribunal did riot give any notice to the petitioner regarding the same. According to the petitioner, if notice was served upon him, he would have apprised the Tribunal of all the facts. But the Tribunal passed an order holding the land in possession of the petitioner to be the excess land. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order in LRA No. 27 of 1995 but the same was dismissed and against the same, the petitioner has come in revision before this Court.

( 3 ) FURTHER, according to the petitioner, under Section 10 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short the Act ) the land which was unencumbered must be selected. When the petitioner purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed, the ceiling proceedings were over. However, according to the petitioner, the declarant was in possession of other lands which were more valuable and the land now sought to be taken was in excess of what was necessary in terms of the standard holdings.

( 4 ) FURTHER according to the petitioner all sales subsequent to 1-1-1975 need not necessarily be void. If other land belonging to the declarant was available, the same should be taken into consideration for the purpose of surrender .

( 5 ) THE appellate Tribunal on the question of the land to be selected for surrender, observed that since the 3rd respondent failed to propose lands of his choice for surrender, the impugned order had to be passed accepting the land in question for surrender which was provisionally selected by it earlier. The appellate Tribunal, on the question whether an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner and whether the order was liable to be set aside on the ground that enquiry was not held, observed that the petitioner/ appellant was the cultivating tenant of the land to the extent of Ac. 3. 80 cents in S. No. 823/1 of which the land in question formed part and parcel since 1970 and that the petitioner/appellant purchased the same by a registered sale deed executed on 28-8-1979. The appellate Tribunal further observed that the sale deed executed subsequent to 1-1-1975 would not be treated as valid. The objection petition was filed by the appellant on 2-3-1995 and the impugned order was passed on 25-3-1995. The learned appellate Tribunal further observed that a perusal of the objection petition should that the appellant had contended that he purchased the land in question for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 28-8-1978 not being aware of the fact that it was covered by the Land Ceiling Act and he came to know about the same when notice under Section 19 (4) of the Act was given. There was no whisper in the objection petition that he was a tenant of the land in question which formed part and parcel of bigger extent of Ac. 3. 80 cents since 1970. For the first time it was urged that the appellant was a cultivating tenant since 1970. The tax receipts filed by him were subsequent to 1-1-1975. The adangal extracts relied upon by him were for the years 1995 which did not contain his name as a tenant of the lands in question. The declaration also was silent on this aspect. Though the declarant filed several appeals earlier, he did not urge anything in the appeals that the appellant was the cultivating tenant. According to t