IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2811 of 2007 Between: Pamula Balakistaiah @ Balakistaiah …Petitioner A n d The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2811 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-04-2006 in Case No.F1/06/2002, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 90(1) of he A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed and the order dated 23-03-2002 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda in file No.D/958/2000 dated 23-03-2002, was confirmed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda seeking re-delivery of an extent of Ac.9-31 gts in Sy.No.99 situate at Rachoor village under Section 32(1) of the Act from the possession of the respondents. According to the petitioner, he was the protected tenant of the said land and was cultivating the same till January, 1998 and that he was forcibly dispossessed from the land by the respondents. He filed an application under Section 32(1) of the Act in May, 2000 enclosing a copy of the tenancy extract of the year 1950. The Mandal Revenue Officer examined the following documents: i) Tenancy register of Rachoor village (Prepared in the year 1950) ii) Khasra pahani (1954-55) of Rachoor village iii) Pahani 1953-54 of Rachoor village iv) Chesala pahanies 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957- 58 v) Other pahanies from 1960 onwards till 1999- 2000 On examination of the above documents, the Mandal Revenue Officer found that though the name of Balakista was shown against column 9 as protected tenant, nothing was written in respect of columns 11, 12 and 13 relating to the mode of payment of the kowl and the pattedar’s name was shown as Ragaiah @ Raghava Chary. The Mandal Revenue Officer also found that as per the pahani for the year 1953-54, the pattedar Raghava Chary was shown as cultivating land in person as it was mentioned in the column meant for cultivation as ‘khuddu’. The khasra pahani for 1954-55 revealed that the land was transferred in the name of the pattedar’s son Jaganadha Chary. The chesala pahani for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 also showed the names of Raghava Chary and one Pamula Kashiga as cultivator of the land. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Pamula Kashiga is none other than Pamula Balakistaiah, the petitioner. There is absolutely no material placed on record to show that Pamula Kashiga is the same person as Balakistaiah, the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, on examination of the material on record, held that Pamula Kashiga is no way concerned with the petitioner. Except a stray mention of the name of Balakistaiah in the tenancy register of the year 1950, there is no other material to show that the petitioner was a protected tenant in respect of the subject land and he continued to be in possession and enjoyment till January, 1998, as alleged by him. In the cause title of the civil revision petition, the age of the petitioner is shown 70 years. The civil revision petition was filed in the year 2007. So, by the year 1950, the petitioner would have been aged about 13 years and it is inconceivable that the petitioner would have been a cultivating tenant of the land at that tender age and his name was also registered as such in the tenancy extract of the year 1950. It is also doubtful as to whether the name of Balakistaiah mentioned in the tenancy register of 1950 is referable to the petitioner, because the petitioner’s name is nowhere mentioned in any of the revenue records at any time subsequently. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of illiteracy, the petitioner could not verify all these years as to whether his name is mentioned or not in the revenue registers, cannot be countenanced and it is highly improbable and hard to believe that when a person claims to be a cultivating tenant of an extent of Ac.9-31 gts for over a period of about 50 years, his name would not find a mention in any of the revenue accounts. The said contention is inconsistent with the other submission that the name of Pamula Kashiga mentioned in the pahanies for the years 1955-58 is referable to the petitioner. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is also called as Kashiga, reference to that name in the pahanies for 1955- 58, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Again, subsequent to 1958 for a period of 40 years, till the alleged dispossession in 1998, there is no reference to the name of the petitioner or that of Kashiga as cultivating tenant in the revenue accounts. At any rate, the pahani for 1953-54 showed that the pattedar Raghava Chary had been cultivating the land personally. Thus, on the crucial date of 04-02-1954, the petitioner is not shown to be in possession of the land and subsequently also the revenue records did not reveal cultivation of land by the petitioner. Of course, the Mandal Revenue Officer observed that the petitioner has orally surrendered the land to the original pattedar Raghava Chary even prior to 1953-54 and ever since the pattedar and his successors- in-interest are in possession. The said observation which is in the nature of an assumption does not clothe the petitioner with any right to claim redelivery, when it is not established that he was in possession of the land as a protected tenant as on the crucial date of 04- 02-1954. When the entry in the tenancy extract of the year 1950 showing the name of Balakistaiah, which in itself is incomplete, is found to be doubtful for the reasons stated supra and when the revenue accounts do not disclose that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment as the cultivating tenant as on the crucial date of 04-02-1954 and the relevant pahani for the year 1953- 54 showing that the land was under personal cultivation of the pattedar Raghava Chary and subsequent pahanies also not disclosing the cultivation of the land by the petitioner and on the other hand, showing that it was cultivated by the pattedar along with one Pamula Kashiga, but not the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for re- delivery of the possession, remains totally unsubstantiated and the same was rightly rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The learned Joint Collector, by the impugned order, on perusal of the records, held that the petitioner herein was not in physical possession and enjoyment of the land for about 50 years and Pamula Kashiga is no way concerned with the petitioner, and therefore, confirmed the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, rejecting the application. The impugned orders, which are passed on proper appreciation of the material available on record, do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as they do not suffer from illegality or material irregularity. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd March 2011 Lrkm.