An error of law committed by the Appellate Authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, is an error of law affecting jurisdiction and the High Court has the power to interfere under Sec. 21 of the Act.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions arise out of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (herinafter referred to as the act ). The revision petitioner is the Government.

( 2 ) THE land-holder (29th respondent) tiled a declaration under Sec. 8of the Act. He claimed certain deductions on the ground that the land was the subject-matter of agreements of sale and the alienees have been in possession. The Land Reforms Tribunal negatived this contention holding that the agreements of sale are not proved. The declarant carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority held that, excepting items 1 and 11, the other sales are genuine and excluded the land covered by items 2 to 10 and 12. Being aggrieved thereby, the Government has come up in revision.

( 3 ) WHEN the revisions came up for hearing before our learned brotherseetharam Reddy, J, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in State of A. P. vs. Mohd Ashrafuddin in which it was held that the land covered by agreements of sale can be included both in the holding of the land-holder as well as the vendee. The learned counsel for the declarant (29th respondent) sought to support the order of the Appellate authority on the ground that even if the order of the appellate authority is illegal, it is not open to the High Court to interfere under Sec. 21 of the act, as the power of the High Court must be confined only to errors of jurisdiction and not to errors of fact or even of law. The learned Judge, having regard to the importance of the question, referred the case to a division Bench and that is how these revision petitions are before us.

( 4 ) THE question for consideration is the scope and ambit of Sec. 21of the Act. "sec. 21. Revision : An application for revision from any party aggrieved, including the Government, shall lie to the High Court, within the prescribed period, from any order passed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on any of the following grounds : namely, (a) that it exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) that it failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) that it acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity". It is seen from the section that the High Court, in revision, can interfere not only in a case where the Appellate Tribunal exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested but also in a case where any illegality or irregularity is committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Thus while clauses (a) and (b) refer to jurisdiction, clause (c) refers to illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The Land Reforms Act is a welfare legislation and the main object of the Act is to put a ceiling on agricultural holdings and distribute the surplus land to the weaker sections. For that purpose, hierarchy of tribunals are constituted to determine the ceiling of the land-holder. In the first instance, the Land Reforms Tribunal would deal with the declaration, with reference to the provisions of the Act in order to determine the holdings and declare the surplus land if any. An appeal is provided under Sec. 20 to the Appellate Tribunal consisting of a district Judge. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, a revision is provided to the State Government. Thus, the jurisdiction vested in all the authorities is to determine the holding with reference to the various provisions of the Act and declare surplus land for the purpose of giving it to the landless poor. Therefore, every error of law which is committed by the authorities in the exercise of their jurisdiction would be very vital and it must be held that it is an error of law which touches the jurisdiction ot the tribunal. Any other construction would defeat the purpose and object of the Act. If an authority commits an illegality and determines the holding incorrectly and if the same cannot be corrected in revision, then the revisional