THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.785 of 2008 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served, none appears for the contesting respondent No.3. The petitioner, who is claiming to be the owner of the land, filed this revision petition under Section 91 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) inter alia assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Joint Collector Adilabad in Case No.D4/TA/6/04, allowing the appeal at the instance of the third respondent herein, who is claiming to be the cultivating tenant of the land, and setting aside the order of the preliminary authority, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudihatnoor, in Case No.B/340/03, dated 18.10.2003. The third respondent filed the application for restoration of possession of the land in an extent of Acs.6.27 and Acs.2.20 respectively in Sy.No.44 and 46 of Lingapoor village contending that he is the cultivating tenant. Earlier the matter has underwent checkered events and also more than one round at the instance of the third respondent and the petitioner, and they were rejected, holding that the third respondent failed to establish his case by any cogent evidence or material. Now subsequent to the earlier round of orders, the present order is passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 18.10.2003 once again rejecting the application holding that during the course of local enquiry and on verification nothing was found in his favour. Further, the matter was again enquired at the instance of the third respondent, but nobody stated that the land was cultivated by him. Therefore, the earlier order dated 28.11.2001 was held to be good rejecting the claim. As against the same the third respondent/tenant filed an appeal, wherein the lower appellate authority after extracting the total checkered events and contentions put forth by both the parties, ultimately allowed the appeal holding that the burden is on the petitioner to disprove identity and since the respondent is an old person, hence unable to produce any material. The reasons given by the lower appellate authority read as under. “After hearing both the parties, perusing the grounds put forth in the appeal and documents produced by the respondent in this case, it is held that, Sri Kova Mahadu (appellant herein) has approached the MRO Gudihatnoor along with P.T. certificate issued by the then Tahsildar, Boath for restoration of possession of P.T. lands mentioned therein. On receipt of the same the MRO has enquired and held that, Sri Kova Mahadu the appellant herein is not the original P.T. Kova Mahadu and he has not cultivated the land earlier. It is revealed from the above that, the then MRO Gudihatnoor has not acted properly in examining the petition filed by the appellant. In the instant case, the appellant is in possession of P.T. certificate, which was issued in the name of Kova Mahadu and his name is also Kova Mahadu. Thus it is tallying. It is for the respondent to prove that, he is not the same Kova Mahadu who has been granted P.T. certificate. Entire burden of proof lies on the respondent only and not on MRO Gudihatnoor. Moreover, the Protected Tenant Sri Kova Mahadu, claimant herein, belongs to Gond (ST) who is an old aged illiterate person. As such, he is unable to produce other documents to strengthen his claim. In view of the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the MRO Gudihatnoor dated 18.10.2003 is set aside. The MRO Gudihatnoor is directed to restore the possession of the P.T. lands to the P.T. Sri Kova Mahadu S/o. Bhuma, Gond (ST) R/o. Mankapur H/o Lingapur village of Gudihatnoor Mandal under Section 32 of the A.P. (TA) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act immediately.” Even on a bare reading of the above observations of the appellate authority, it is clear that no material is found in favour of the third respondent to substantiate that he is the cultivating tenant or protected tenant or otherwise, including identity itself, which itself goes to the root of the matter. Normally, when identity is disputed, it is for the person whose identity is disputed to establish by cogent evidence. The burden therefore lies on him and not on other side to establish negative. Age is not a factor to confer any right, if he does not have. In view of the same, the order passed by the appellate authority directing restoration of the possession of the third respondent is unsustainable. It is now well established that in the matters of this nature, where the very dispute is with regard to the rights claimed by the parties necessarily it has to be properly established by the evidence. It cannot be said that no such revenue record is available and no presumption can be drawn. The lower appellate authority without properly considering the main issue, or going into the same as to the necessity of proper evidence on that aspect and without giving any specific finding on the very crucial aspects, straight away allowed the claim on mere surmises. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification in straight away allowing the appeal and claim as set forth by the third respondent. Even in this revision, nothing has been produced by the third respondent indicating that he is the cultivating tenant or even proof of identity. Therefore the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Joint Collector vide Case No.D4/TA/6/04 dated 31.12.2007, and the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer vide Case No.B/340/03 dated 18.10.2003 stand upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) 24th June, 2010 Js.