( 1 ) SINCE both the revisions relate to the same lands, they are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) SRI Trivikrama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Tribunals below were mainly influenced by the sole fact that the names of the petitioners were still found in the Pahanies as the persons have been enjoying the lands in question and hence they rejected the petitioners case that the lands in S. Nos. 185, 225 and 226 of Vempahad village and S. No. 119 of Bokkamanthalapahad village were sold away by them without considering the affidavits of the scribe of the agreements of sale, the affidavits of the purchasers, the land revenue recepts showing the payment of land revenue by the purchasers and also the affidavits of the village patwaries. He, therefore, contends that if those affidavits as well as the land revenue receipts are taken into consideration, there cannot be any doubt that the vendees have been enjoving the lands which they have purchased under agreements of sale and the declarants are entitled to claim the exclusion of those lands from their holdings. It is the case of the declarants that they sold the lands in S. Nos. 185, 225 and 226 of Vempahad village and S. No. 119 of Bokkamanthalapahad village. To prove their case, they relied upon the agreements of sale, the affidavits of the scribes of those documents and also the affidavits of the purchasers and the land revenue receipts showing the payment of land revenu in respect of these lands eversince the date of purchase of the lands by them and also the affidavits of the Patwaries. But the Tribunals below did not look into these documents, but solely relied upon the solitary circumstance that the pahanies mention the name of the declarant and held that since the declarants names are found in the pahanies, the declarants cases cannot be accepted.

( 3 ) FROM the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and also the original Tribunal, it is clear that they did not consider at all the several affidavits as well as the documents filed on behalf of the declarants. If these documents are given weight, they establish the cases of the declarants. If that be so, the fact that the pahanies stilt contain the names of the declarants is of no consequence, as the names of the land owners appear in the pahanies till the registered sale deeds are obtained by the vendees as mutation of patta is not effected in the name of vendees in the absence of registered sale deeds. The main question therefore, is whether these documents deserve to be relied upon ot not. The Tribunals below did not look into these documents. When certain documents were filed and when the declarants rely upon them to prove their cases, it is the duty of the Tribunals to advert to them and give reasons with reference to each document either for giving weight to them or to reject them. The Tribunals are not permitted to negative the case of the declarants without looking into the documents and without giving reasons as to why they are not inclined to place reliance upon them. The failure on the part of the Tribunals to consider the documents vitiates their orders. At this juncture, I feel it useful to refer to the observation of my learned brother Seetharam Reddy, J. , in C. R. P. Nos. 2558/79 and 2559/79 dated 14-11-1979 which is to the following effect. "the case has been rejected merely on the ground that in the pahanies, still the name of the declarant appears. Surely the name of the declarant will appear as long as the lands are not registered and patta is not changed. . . . . . . . . . . . "the orders of the Tribunals are thus vitiated.

( 4 ) SRI Trivikrama Rao also contends that the lower Tribunals are not justified to hold that the lands in S. Nos. 119, 120, 121 and 124 of bokkamanthalapahad village and also the land in S. No. 739 of Miryalaguda village are single crop wet lands. He contends that the lands were brought under Nagarjunasagar ayacut by a Gazette