THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 83 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision arising under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, is at the instance of the protected tenant who has been granted ownership certificates where they assail the correctness of the orders of the Appellate Authority /Joint Collector in dismissing their appeal in File No. F2/5317/2006 who in turn confirmed the orders of the primary authority/Mandal Revenue Officer , Moinabad dated 26.11.2005 in Case No.B/1188/2003. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of rejection of application purported to have been filed under Section 32 of the said Act, alleging that they have been dispossessed illegally and hence sought restoration of the possession of the land in question. The undisputed facts as they emerge are that originally the grand father of the petitioners was cultivating the said land as tenant who is protected and subsequently after the enforcement of the provisions of Section 38 (e) of the said Act, the ownership certificate was issued in his favour viz., grand father vide proceedings No.LRW/46/75 dated 21.5.1975. According to the petitioners, after the death of their grand father, their father succeeded to the property and there after the petitioners were succeeded, being legal heirs. Since they were illegally dispossessed, sought for restoration of the possession. After contest, the said application was disposed of by holding an enquiry by the orders of primary authority dated 26.11.2005 rejecting the application on the ground that subsequent to the grant of ownership rights, the remedy of the petitioner would only lie before the Civil Court but not under the provisions of the said Act. Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioners and the same was dismissed by orders dated 3.5.2006. On further revision at the instance of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2877 of 2006, this Court allowed the same and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the matter was again taken up by the primary authority and it met with the same result in rejecting the application on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The further appeal did not yield any result, hence the present revision. Heard both sides. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the only point for consideration is ‘whether in the facts and circumstances and especially subsequent to grant of ownership rights and section 38 (e) of the Act, where the persons claiming any such certificate can invoke provisions under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of possession.’ The learned Single Judge of this Court in JUPUDI BHUSHANAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR, KHAMMAM AND OTHERS [1] held that once certificate is issued under Section 38 (3) the protected tenant becomes the owner and for any subsequent dispossession he has to resort to the Civil Court and cannot rely upon the provisions of the Tenancy Act. While holding so, the learned Single Judge has followed the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in SADA Vs. THE TAHSILDAR, UTNOOR, ADILABAD DISTRICT [2] . In the said decision, the Full Bench of this Court on appraisal of the entire gamut of relevant provisions under the said Act, has held that once such certificate is granted, he becomes an absolute owner and if at all such protected tenant was illegally dispossessed by the land lard, he has to seek back possession under Section 32 of the said Act before issuance of such ownership certificate. While so, it was held as follows; “For purposes of Section 38.E(1) the protected tenant should not have validly surrendered his tenancy rights by the date of notification under S.38 E(1). But if he had voluntarily surrendered his rights prior to 4.2.1954 (the date of the 1954 amendment) and put the landholder in possession, be it without the intervention of the Tahsildar, he could not claim any rights of ownership under Section 38 (E) (1) upon the issue of the notification. Likewise, if the surrender was after 4.2.1954 and before the date of notification under Sec.38 E (1) and S.19 and was a valid surrender, the protected tenant could not claim ownership rights. If, however, there was no valid surrender whether before (being not voluntary but forcible) or after (being not in conformity with S.19) the protected tenant had a right to be put back in possession under Section 32 or 44 by the notified date) would be entitled to ownership rights under Sec 38 (E) (1) and would be entitled to the ownership certificate under Sec.38 (E) (2). In cases where proceedings under Sec.19 are pending on the date of notification and end in favour of the protected tenant thereafter, the date of vesting gets postponed till the said decision.” Having regard to the aforesaid principles as enunciated, where there cannot be any serious dispute nor any other decision being cited across the bar contra in its principles, it can safely be said that both the authorities have rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners who claimed the succession rights in pursuance of ownership certificate granted under Section 38 (E) of the said Act. There are no merits in the revision, warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. __________________ B PRAKASH RAO,J DATE: -07-2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 83 OF 2008 [1] 1997 (1) ALT 627 [2] 1987 (2) ALT 749= AIR 1988 AP 77