ORDER 1. DELAY IS CONDONED AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IS ORDERED. 2. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD IN CRP NO. 1620 OF 1980, DATED 16-4-1980. 3. THE PROCEEDINGS OUT OF WHICH THIS APPEAL ARISES HAVE ORIGIN IN THE ANDHRA PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973. UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE SAID ACT, EVERY PERSON, WHOSE HOLDING ON THE NOTIFIED DATE TOGETHER WITH ANY LAND TRANSFERRED BY HIM ON OR AFTER 24-1-1971, WHETHER BY WAY OF SALE, GIFT, USUFRUCTUARY MORTGAGE, EXCHANGE, SETTLEMENT, SURRENDER OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, AND ANY LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH A TRUST HAS BEEN CREATED BY HIM ON OR AFTER 24-1-1971, EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIED LIMITS, IS REQUIRED TO FILE A DECLARATION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE NOTIFIED DATE IN RESPECT OF HIS HOLDING TOGETHER WITH SUCH LAND. THE RESPONDENT FILED A DECLARATION THEREUNDER. THE PRIMARY TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS COVERED BY EXHIBITS A-5 TO A-15 WERE WITHIN THE PROHIBITED PERIOD, NAMELY, 24-1-1971 AND THE NOTIFIED DATE, AND, THEREFORE, THEY HAD TO BE IGNORED FOR THE . PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE CEILING AREA HELD BY THE DECLARANT. IN REGARD TO THE . SALE DEEDS, THE TRIBUNAL RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THEY WERE NOT BONA FIDE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT THEY WERE EXECUTED WITH A VIEW TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CEILING LAW. THE LAND COVERED BY THOSE SALE DEEDS WAS INCLUDED IN THE HOLDING OF THE DECLARANT, REJECTING THE REQUEST THAT THEY SHALL BE EXCLUDED. 4. ON APPEAL BY THE RESPONDENT DECLARANT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED DURING THE CRUCIAL PERIOD AND OUT OF THEM MANY WERE EXECUTED IN THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 1971. HOWEVER, BY A STRANGE REASONING THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ALIENATIONS CAME TO BE EFFECTED DURING THE CRUCIAL PERIOD, THEY COULD NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY DISREGARDED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FURTHER QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE TRUE OR NOT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BY ITS ORDER DATED 19-12-1979, ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND DIRECTED THAT THE LANDS COVERED BY THE SAID SALE DEEDS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE HOLDING OF THE DECLARANT. THE REVISION FILED BY THE STATE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WAS DISMISSED BY THE ORDER IMPUGNED IN THIS APPEAL. 5. THE REVISION FILED BY THE STATE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WAS DISMISSED BY THE ORDER IMPUGNED IN THIS APPEAL. 5. MR T.Y. RATNAM, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE STATE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE REVISION IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW DECLARED BY A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN YEDIDA CHAKRADHARARAO V. STATE OF A.P.1 6. THE RESPONDENT DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL. MR Y. PRABHAKARA RAO, ADVOCATE, HAS FILED VAKALATNAMA FOR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. THOUGH THE CASE WENT ON FOR MORE THAN ONE-AND-A-HALF HOURS, LEARNED COUNSEL DID NOT TURN UP. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF SECTION 8 OF THE ACT WHICH SAYS THAT THE DECLARANT SHOULD INCLUDE ALL THE LANDS TRANSFERRED BY HIM ON OR AFTER 24-1-1971 FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF HIS HOLDING, THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THAT OF THE HIGH COURT DIRECTING EXCLUSION OF THE LAND COVERED BY THE SALE DEEDS, WHICH WERE EXECUTED DURING THE CRUCIAL PERIOD, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 8. IN YEDIDA CHAKRADHARARAO EASEL THE LANDOWNER-DECLARANT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND DELIVERED POSSESSION OF THE AREAS COVERED BY THE AGREEMENTS FOR SALE TO THE PURCHASERS. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER SUCH LANDS HAD TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HOLDING OF THE DECLARANT. THE CONSTITUTION BENCH HELD THAT THE ACT WAS A PIECE OF AGRARIAN LEGISLATION ENACTED WITH A VIEW TO ACHIEVE A MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF LANDS FOR COMMON GOOD AND WITH A VIEW TO SUBSERVE THE OBJECTIVES ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 39 OF THE CONSTITUTION, BEING ONE OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH A LEGISLATION HAD TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY AND WITH A VIEW TO FURTHERING THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO DEFEAT THE SAME IN A STRICT AND CONSTRICTED MANNER IN WHICH A TAXING LAW, FOR INSTANCE, MIGHT BE INTERPRETED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT WAS HELD THAT THE LAND COVERED UNDER AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OR AN AGREEMENT OF LEASE, EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASER OR THE LESSEE MIGHT BE IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE HOLDINGS OF BOTH THE PURCHASER AS WELL AS THE OWNER OR THE LESSEE AND THE OWNER. 9. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER CHALLENGE. 9. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER CHALLENGE. IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE PRIMARY TRIBUNAL IS RESTORED. 10. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 11. NO COSTS.