L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an unfortunate case where an agriculturist has been made to file as many as four appeals, not to speak of equal number of proceedings before the Land reforms Tribunal. Still the matter stands where it was earlier. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a declaration under Section 8 of The A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT) through its order dated 23-3-1978 held that the petitioner has 0. 6589 standard holding of land in excess of ceiling limit. He filed lra No. 67 of 1978 before Land Reforms appellate Tribunal (LRAT ). The LRAT through its order dated 21-10-1978 took a view that the excess holding of the petitioner is 0. 3374 and the same was confirmed in C. R. P. No. 214 of 1978 by this court through order dated 20-7-1979. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the LRT initiated proceedings for surrender. The petitioner offered to surrender Ac. 11-81 cents equivalent to 0. 3374 standard holding in certain survey numbers. The LRT passed orders dated 22-8-1984 rejecting the offer stating that some of the items are not acceptable. The petitioner filed LRA No. 16 of 1984 and the LRAT allowed the appeal through its order dated 25-1-1985 directing the LRT to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to the acceptability of the items of land offered for surrender. Notwithstanding the same, the LRT passed another order dated 07-1-1988 reiterating its earlier stand. The petitioner had to file lrano. 45 of 1994 which was once again allowed through order dated 16-2-1995 reiterating its earlier direction. Even this did not have any impact on the LRT which passed an order dated 24-9-1998 observing the directions of the LRAT, only in breach. Left with no alternative, the petitioner filed an appeal for the fourth time, the appeal being LRA No. 13 of 1998. The LRAT rejected the appeal through its order dated 15-3-2000. Hence, this revision. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. Srinivas Rao for mr. G. Krishnamurthy and mr. T. Rajasekhar Rao, learned Assistant government Pleader appearing for respondents. ( 5 ) THE narrow controversy in this proceeding relates to the validity of the objection raised by the LRT in accepting the lands to the extent of Ac. 11-81 cents of land offered by the petitioner. J. Srinivas Rao for mr. G. Krishnamurthy and mr. T. Rajasekhar Rao, learned Assistant government Pleader appearing for respondents. ( 5 ) THE narrow controversy in this proceeding relates to the validity of the objection raised by the LRT in accepting the lands to the extent of Ac. 11-81 cents of land offered by the petitioner. Initially, the LRT refused to accept certain items of lands stating that they are not acceptable. The lrat repeatedly held that if at all it is said that the petitioner does not have title to the said items of land, the authority ought not to have included the same in the holding. It further observed that if the LRT has any objection for accepting the said items of land, it shall inform the nature of objections to the petitioner and give him an opportunity to explain. In spite of repeated remands, that direction was,not complied with. After the third remand, what all LRT has done was to issue notice dated 07-7-1995 to the petitioner to surrender certain land and when the petitioner offered Ac. 11-81 cents of land, it rejected the same on the ground that those lands were already proposed and rejected by the LRT. In other words, it stuck to its earlier stand and did not care to follow the direction issued by lrat. This only shows the callousness and indifference exhibited by the LRT in dealing with the statutory proceedings and valuable rights of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is a matter of concern that the petitioner has been subjected to so many rounds of litigation on account of the persistent indifference of the LRT. It is settled principle of law and in fact it is stated by LRAT in its order dated 16-2-1995 to the effect that if a particular item of land was held by any declarant for the purpose of inclusion in the holding, both in law as well as in logic, such items of property should be acceptable in surrender proceedings also. There cannot be two sets of norms one for the purpose of inclusion in the holding and the other for acceptance in the surrender proceedings. By its very nature, the Act is an expropriatory legislation and strict interpretation of the provisions of the Act has to be made and strict compliance as to the procedure has to be ensured. There cannot be two sets of norms one for the purpose of inclusion in the holding and the other for acceptance in the surrender proceedings. By its very nature, the Act is an expropriatory legislation and strict interpretation of the provisions of the Act has to be made and strict compliance as to the procedure has to be ensured. Any deviation from the same would encroach upon the rights of the declarants. Unfortunately, the LRAT in its order under revision has chosen not to be consistent with its earlier orders. The orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal as well as appellate Tribunal, which are under revision, cannot be sustained in law and on facts. Hence, they are set aside. ( 7 ) IN the normal course, this Court would have remitted the case once again to the land Reforms Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh, but having noticed the persistent indifference exhibited by the land Reforms Tribunal, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served in directing the LRT to issue notice to the petitioner and consider the objections, if any raised. The petitioner had suffered enough. In that view of the matter. I direct that the land Reforms Tribunal shall accept the items of property offered by the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 11-81 cents. If for any reason, the Land Reforms Tribunal takes the view that some of the items of property are not acceptable for surrender, such items shall stand excluded from the holding of the petitioner in which case the extent declared excess shall correspondingly get reduced. This court is constrained to pass this order under extraordinary circumstances and having regard to harassment to which the petitioner was subjected to several rounds of litigation. ( 8 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.