THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.6168, 6186 and 6299 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since common question arises in these three Civil Revision Petitions, which are filed against the very same order though individually by separate contesting parties, they are being taken up together for disposal. The petitioners herein, who claim to be the purchasers of the land in question from the land holder filed these revisions purportedly under Section 91 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act, 1950’) assailing the orders of the appellate authority in allowing the appeal at the instance of the respondents, who claimed to be the original protected tenants upholding their rights as protected tenants and setting aside the orders of the primary authority namely, Revenue Divisional Officer holding otherwise. Briefly, the facts which are not in dispute are, that originally one Mohd Mirza was the pattedar of the land admeasuring in Sy.No.234 to an extent of Ac.12-19 gts situated at Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, whereas one Chakali Balaiah, who is recorded as protected tenant in respect of the said land, has been issued protected tenancy certificate under Section 38-E of Act, 1950 on 10-6-1975 and 11-6-1975 in File No.LRW/244/75, on the file of the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR), Hyderabad West. The petitioners claim to have purchased the said property in pursuance of a registered sale deed Doc.No.256/1971, dated 30-1- 1971. Hence, the petitioners have filed appeals against the said orders of grant of certificate in favour of protected tenant and the said appeal was allowed by the appellate authority, as per the orders dated 21-2- 1995 and remanded the matter back to the primary authority for fresh enquiry. Accordingly, after the remand, the primary authority had taken up the case and passed the orders on 31-12-2005 upholding the claim of protected tenancy only to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts out of Ac.12-19 gts and confirming the claim of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.8-19 gts in pursuance of the aforementioned registered sale deed. Hence, an appeal was filed by the respondents claiming through the protected tenant as against such refusal in respect of the balance extent of land. It is to be seen that no appeal has been filed by the petitioners as against the confirmation of the protected tenancy right under Section 38-E of the said Act, 1950 to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts and there is no explanation forthcoming on behalf of the petitioners. The lower appellate authority, after taking into consideration the respective submissions, allowed the appeal of the respondents upholding their claim in its entirety to the extent of Ac.12-19 gts in the said land bearing Sy.No.234. While so, the appellate authority has held that the protected tenant is entitled to the tenancy rights and the certificate under section 38-E for the entire extent of land and the sales effected prior to, or later to, grant of 38-E certificate by the land holder or other successor is invalid, having regard to the provision under Section 38-D of the said Act, 1950. Further, by placing reliance on Section 30 of the said Act, 1950, it was held that there could not have been any such termination of protected tenancy once it has been recognized in their favour. Hence, these revisions. The common ground of attack as against the orders of the lower appellate authority in appeal is based on the purchase made by the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid registered sale deed from the land holder and claiming that they have become the absolute owner and title holders, and further the question of granting any protected tenancy does not arise. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents herein. In view of the detailed submissions and on perusal of the entire material and entire provisions of the Act, 1950, the point, which arises for consideration is as to whether petitioners are entitled to set forth any claim in respect of the land, which has been held by a protected tenant. There being no dispute to the fact that the petitioners are only claiming in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 30-1-1971 from the original pattedar and his representatives. There is no dispute to the fact that original pattedar was a land holder in respect of the said land in Sy.No.234, which has been recognized as the land held by a tenant and in turn becoming a protected one under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. There is also no dispute to the fact that Section 38-E certificate was granted to the protected tenant Chakali Balaiah, the grand father of respondents 1 to 4 herein, on 10-6-1975 and 11-6-1975 itself. This, in fact, is only recognition of a right of the tenant, who has been in possession at the relevant point of time as per the provisions as contained in the Act, 1950 which came into force long earlier. The claim of the third party purchasers is of a civil nature between parties to the sale and ceases to be a tenancy issue. There is no serious dispute on behalf of the petitioners nor there is any material in support to show that the protected tenant was not in possession on the relevant date as per the aforesaid provision nor it is their case that there could not have been any such recognition initially or from inception. Once a person remains in possession, extending the principle of land to the tiller, the social reform legislation under the aforesaid Act recognizes all his rights and confers the grant of certificate of ownership. Even if, such tenant loses possession in any manner whatsoever, the same is protected, and he would be entitled to seek back the possession. That apart, even any sale effected by the land holder or pattedar would not in any way divest or effect the rights, which have been recognized or granted under the provisions of the said Act, 1950 in favour of the tenant or the protected tenant. These aforesaid principles are now well settled as laid down by the apex Court in Edukanti Kistamma Vs. S.Venkatareddy[1] apart from the earlier decisions of this Court. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner as to how they can make a claim contra to the right vested in the tenants in pursuance of such purchase made by them, be it a registered or otherwise. Therefore, it can safely be held that all those things have absolutely no bearing on the question whether a person is a tenant or protected tenant or not. Necessarily, it follows that these claims are being set forth to the detriment of the right, which has been recognized by the statute and as well protected there under apart from the same being immune from any attack of whatsoever nature under the provisions of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid reasons as rightly held by the lower appellate authority that the protected tenancy continues to exist and the same cannot be taken away by any such transaction and the protected tenant and his legal representatives claiming through him would be entitled to the same protection. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the revisions and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. ________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) grk Date: 7 -04-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.6168, 6186 and 6299 of 2009 Dated: 7 -04-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.6168, 6186 and 6299 of 2009 P.D Judgment to be pronounced [1] (2010) 1 SCC 756