THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3316 of 2011 O R D E R: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar in case No.F1/04/2000 dated 07.01.2011 in an appeal filed under Section 90(1) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooq Nagar, in File No.B/870/93. The material papers disclose the origin of the dispute to be the controversy about the extent of protected tenancy in S.No.586 of Yellikata village to an extent of Ac.7.37 guntas with one Gunna Chennaiah and another Buyyani Hanumaiah being claimed to be protected tenants, the first claiming the entire land and the latter claiming about half of it. In the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooq Nagar, dated 14.12.1989 on a petition under Section 32(1) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) on the application of Gunna Bheemaiah, S/o Gunna Chennaiah, it was found that while the protected tenancy certificate was issued only in the name of Sri Gunna Chennaiah, the protected tenancy Register disclosed mention of the protected tenancy of Sri Gunna Chennaiah to be only over Ac.4.15 guntas, whereas Buyyani Hanumaiah was the protected tenant for Ac.4.00. The Mandal Revenue Officer found that the Khasra pahani and some subsequent pahanis had also the names of two persons as cultivators of the land. The Mandal Revenue Officer, therefore, concluded that the legal representatives of the protected tenancy certificate holder have to apply for succession under Section 40 of the Act and also take steps for correction of the protected tenancy Register, which is a matter under the jurisdiction of the revision Divisional Officer. After the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed a further order on the petition for succession to Gunna Chennaiah recognizing 9 persons as successors, in the proceedings dated 02.07.1990 in file No.B/1183/90, based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector. The succession was under Section 40 of the Act in respect of S.No.586 (old S.No.659) of Elikatta village. In pursuance of the said proceedings, a further memo was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 28.07.1990 to deliver physical possession of Ac.7.37 guntas of land in S.No.586 to the said 9 successors of Gunna Chennaiah. The said order was challenged by persons claiming under Buyyani Hanumaiah in Appeal Case No.B/7/22/90 before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. In the order dated 26.07.1991, the Joint Collector found that both Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah were shown as protected tenants in respect of the subject land in the original Tenancy Register read together with the khasra pahani and that notice should have been served on the appellants before passing any order. The Joint Collector further observed that without any specific orders on the application under Section 32(1) of the Act, further orders were passed on the application under Section 40 and delivery of possession was effected, which, therefore, appear to be vitiated and hence the order was set aside and the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to restore the possession of the land to the persons claiming through Buyyani Hanumaiah. However, in C.R.P.No.2305 of 1991, this Court, by an order dated 13.03.1993 construed the order of the Joint Collector as an order of remand and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by any observations made by the Joint Collector in his proceedings. The Mandal Revenue Officer accordingly dealt with the matter in the order dated 29.01.2000 in file No.B/870/93 and observed that the final Tenancy Register of Elikatta village mentioned the names of Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah in respect of old S.No.659 and opined that the plea on behalf of the persons claiming through Buyyani Hanumaiah appeared to be correct. The persons claiming through Gunna Chennaiah were opined to be liable to seek correction of the tenancy record as per the statutory rules as advised in order No.B/3466/88 dated 16.12.1989 (or 14-12-1989?). The Mandal Revenue Officer consequently noted that it is the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the competent authority in such matters, but the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot derecognize Buyyani Hanumaiah as protected tenant. The Mandal Revenue Officer also noted that the persons claiming through Gunna Chennaiah are in possession of the land and the persons claiming through Buyyani Hanumaiah were only requesting for restitution of possession of half of the land. While noting that persons claiming through Buyyani Hanumaiah did not file any petition under Section 32 of the Act, it was observed that the persons claiming through Gunna Chennaiah admittedly in possession of the land cannot apply for any redelivery of possession and therefore, it was ordered that they shall continue in possession without any disturbance until otherwise ousted by a competent court of law. This order was the subject of the appeal in case No.F1/4/2000 before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate. The Joint Collector, on a perusal of the order under appeal and the material on record, again referred to a copy of the certified copy of the khasra pahani in which the names of three persons were mentioned as the cultivators and the other pahanis where the names of more than one person were referred to as the cultivators. The protected tenancy certificate was noted to have been issued in the name of Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah also for Ac.4.15 guntas and Ac.4.00 respectively in the old S.No.659. The final Tenancy Register was also stated to be referring to both the persons. The Joint Collector, therefore, did not act upon the claim of the present revision petitioners about the name of Buyyani Hanumaiah being interpolated in the final Tenancy Register and further observed that the revision petitioners in possession of the entire extent were handed over possession by virtue of the memo dated 28.07.1990 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Joint Collector, therefore, felt that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer holding that restoration of possession to the persons already in possession does not arise was correct, but went on further to hold that Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah were joint protected tenants as recorded in the final Tenancy Register 1951 and therefore, both parties are respectively entitled to half of the extent of the suit land. The revision petitioners challenged the said appellate order in this revision under Section 91 of the Act claiming that the protected tenancy certificate was granted only in favour of Gunna Chennaiah which attained statutory finality and which cannot be interfered with or modified or annulled under any provision of the Act or any Rule made thereunder. The revision petitioners further contended that the Joint Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the tenancy rights or the tenancy certificate or to declare any persons as the protected tenants in the proceedings under Section 32 of the Act. The Joint Collector exercised a jurisdiction not vested with him, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioners and, therefore, the revision petitioners desired the order to be set aside, which confirmed the observations made in the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri C.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, are heard. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the Joint Collector is susceptible to interference in this revision. The admitted facts that can be culled out from the material on record are that S.No.586 of Elikatta village corresponding to old S.No.659 was admittedly under protected tenancy and the protected tenants are entitled to the rights and privileges conferred by the Act. In respect of the entire extent of S.No.586, protected tenancy certificate was issued in the name of Gunna Chennaiah whose legal representatives are the present revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7, whose succession was recognized by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the order dated 02.07.1990. When Gunna Bhimaiah, S/o Chennaiah applied for possession of the land under Section 32 of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer found the names of Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah to have been entered as the protected tenants in the protected tenancy Register in respect of the land in S.No.659 to an extent of Ac.4.15 guntas and Ac.4.00 respectively. The orresponding entries in the khasra pahani and subsequent pahanis were also noted to have reflected the cultivation of land in this survey number by more than one person. For that reason, the Mandal Revenue Officer felt in the orders dated 14.12.1989, that steps should have been taken for the correction of the protected tenancy Register, which is within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer. After granting of succession by the order dated 2.07.1990 by the Mandal Revenue Officer and consequent delivery of physical possession by the memo dated 28.07.1990, which was physically given effect to putting the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 in physical possession of the land, admittedly, the revision petitioners did not take any steps for correction of the final protected tenancy register, whereas the respondents 2 to 4 did not take any steps to apply under Section 32 of the Act for recovery of possession. On the other hand, the respondents 2 to 4 filed an appeal against delivery of possession to the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7, which went against the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 by directing restoration of possession to respondents 2 to 4 in the light of the entries in the final protected tenancy register and the khasra pahani and other pahanis. In revision, however, this Court directed the entire issue to be re-examined by the Mandal Revenue Officer treating the order of the Joint Collector as an order of remand and in his order, it has to be noted that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not express any conclusive opinion on the right of the respondents 2 to 4 to be recognized as the protected tenants in respect of any portion of land as the successors of Buyyani Hanumaiah or the right of the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 to have the entries in the final protected tenancy Register corrected. While referring to the rival contentions and on perusing the material on record, the Mandal Revenue Officer merely reiterated the pleas taken by the learned counsel for both sides while opining prima facie that the opinion of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 herein appeared to be more correct about the entries in the protected tenancy Register. However, while recording that he is not the competent authority to correct the protected tenancy Register, the Mandal Revenue Officer had in fact only ordered continuance of possession of the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 without any disturbance until otherwise ousted by a competent court of law. In the impugned order in appeal, the Joint Collector, however, proceeded to draw final conclusions about the protected tenancy rights and, without any proper applications from either party for correction of the entries in the protected tenancy Register or for delivery of possession, proceeded to declare both Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah to be joint protected tenants and their successors to be entitled to possession of half of the entire extent of land in the survey number, while even the parties do not claim the division of the protected tenancy to be exactly half of the survey number. The Joint Collector does not appear to have even given full hearing to the learned counsel for the parties when he observed that both the counsel agreed to the matter being decided on merits, in para 4 of the impugned order. The Joint Collector strangely observed that the protected Tenancy Certificate was issued in the name of Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah in respect of Ac.4.15 guntas and Ac.4.00 respectively in old Survey No.659 as opposed to the observations of the authorities in the various other proceedings referred to above which arose earlier. In fact, Sri Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, had produced for perusal of the Court during hearing, the colour Xerox copy of the protected tenancy certificate issued in favour of Gunna Chennaiah which does not disclose in any manner any connection with the Ac.8.16 guntas of land for Buyyani Hanumaiah. While this observation of the Joint Collector about the joint protected tenancy certificate in favour of both the persons in respect of the subject land thus appears to have no factual basis, from the final tenancy Register in which the name of Buyyani Hanumaiah also found place, the Joint Collector drew irresistible conclusions about the protected tenancy of Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah without there being an appropriate proceeding under the statute before him for enquiry into the said question and arriving at any conclusion on that aspect. While the impugned order itself did recognize that the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 came into possession through the memo issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on being delivered physical possession by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the observations of the Joint Collector against the said memo stating the same to be a not speaking order could have no effect as the memo dated 28.07.1990 was not the subject matter of the appeal. The nature of possession of the revision petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 by virtue of the memo and consequent delivery of possession could have been the subject matter of adjudication only under Section 32, after such a proceeding were taken recourse to by respondents 2 to 4 herein. The conclusions of the Joint Collector holding that Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah were joint protected tenants as recorded in the final Tenancy Register 1951 and therefore, the appellants and respondents before him are entitled each to possession of half of the extent of the suit land thus appear to be much beyond the scope of the appeal before the Joint Collector and the scope of his jurisdiction in determining an appeal against the order of Mandal Revenue Officer as per the statute or statutory Rules. Sri C.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, referred to certain precedents commencing from Raj Kishan Pershad and another v Joint Collector, R.R.District and others[1], wherein a learned Judge of this Court has concluded that it is not within the scope of the revisional Court to reappreciate or reappraise the evidence or facts placed before the original as well as the appellate fact finding authorities. But, what is being attempted herein is not such reappreciation or reappraisal of evidence on facts, but noting the unacceptable manner in which the Joint Collector came to conclusions on questions which are not the subject matter of the appeal before him and which conclusions were not based on any evidence placed before the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Joint Collector. There was no evidence for or against the entries in the final protected tenancy Register or about the delivery of possession which could have been, as already stated, the subject of some other proceedings under the statute. The learned counsel also referred to the decision reported in Mohd.Yunus v Mohd.Mustaqim and others[2] which also is about a revisional Court not being competent to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based. However, the decision made it clear that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and if the Joint Collector decides by his impugned order, questions which do not arise before him, it is undoubtedly a case of exceeding the limits of his authority under the statute which calls for interference by the revisional Court. The decision reported in Sanjay Rural Electrical Co-operative Society Limited, Jogipet through its Managing Director, Sri M.Krishna Swamy v G.Mallaiah and others[3] about the competence or the absence of it for the Tahasildar to order resumption of land under a panchnama cannot be the subject of any consideration herein as the legality of the proceedings taken in pursuance of the memo dated 28.07.1990 has to be the subject of a proceeding, to which the parties may take recourse to under Section 32 of the Act. Similarly, the decision reported in Nagar Palika Nigam v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and others[4] about the interpretation of a statute, lays down a salutary principle and it is within the limits of the statute that the issue is being examined herein. Similarly, in Sardar Estates v Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.[5], the Apex Court was dealing with an instance of frivolous objections amounting to a fragrant abuse of process of Court by the litigant and any such aspect does not arise in these proceedings. Coming back to the impugned order, therefore, it has to be concluded that the Collector, in finalising the existence or otherwise of the protected tenancy rights of Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah or persons claiming through them, had exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him in deciding such an appeal, as the said matter was not the subject matter of the appeal and was also not the subject of the decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Collector had no material to come to the conclusions which he had drawn and should have confined himself only to confirming the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer insofar as it is observed that a person in possession cannot again seek to get possession under Section 32 of the Act. The appropriate course of action to which revision petitioners and the respondents 5 to 7, have to take recourse to, as observed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the order dated 29.01.2000, is by taking recourse to Hyderabad Tenancy Records Correction Rules 1956 and the relief which the respondents 2 to 4 can claim in respect of recovery of possession of any land can only be by taking advantage of procedure prescribed under Section 32 of the Act. If either party takes recourse to such proceedings, they should be decided uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order or the other proceedings and the revision petition has to be ordered accordingly. In the result, the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in case No.F1/4/2000 dated 07.01.2011 is set aside to the extent of his holding Gunna Chennaiah and Buyyani Hanumaiah to be the joint protected tenants as recorded in the final tenancy Register of 1951 and further holding that the appellants and respondents before him are each entitled to possession of half of the extent of the suit land, and the questions are left open to be determined on merits in accordance with law, after every opportunity of hearing to both parties, if either party takes recourse to any proceedings available to them under law in respect of the subject land, which determination shall be uninfluenced either by the impugned order or any other proceedings taken earlier. The revision petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 17th August, 2011. PNV [1] 2001(3) ALT 227 [2] AIR 1984 SC 38 [3] 1994 (3)ALT 593 (D.B.) [4] 2008(7) Supreme 762 [5] 2009(6) SCJ 602