IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6051 of 2009 BETWEEN Smt. M. Surekha. ... PETITIONER AND Nimmagudem Laxmaiah and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. C.B. RAMMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. VEDULA VENKATARAMANA for MR. MALLA LAXMA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the respondent in Case No.D/4242/2007 dated 05.05.2008 before the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The first respondent herein filed an application purporting to be under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that he is the successor to the original protected tenant of the land bearing Sy.No.182 extent Ac.0.36 guntas; Sy.No.183 extent Ac.2.28 guntas and Sy.No.184 extent Ac.16.21 guntas situated at Srinagar village of Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar by order dated 05.05.2008 on the ground that as per the tenancy register there is no PT in respect of Sy.No.184 and in respect of Sy.Nos.182 and 183 the name of one Venkatnarayana Rao S/o. Purshotham Rao, is recorded as PT. In view of that fact, the Assistant Collector found that the first respondent herein had no locus. 3. An appeal was filed before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F2/4845/2008 wherein by order dated 07.11.2009 exactly opposite findings are recorded by the appellate authority on the basis of very same final Agricultural Tenancy statement 1950 and found that one Nimmagudem Yenkulu S/o. Yellaiah was recorded as PT for all the three survey numbers. In view of the said finding the appellate authority allowed the application of the first respondent herein under Section 32 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby the present revision is filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the first respondent. 5. It is true that the appellate authority in its order has recorded factual aspects, which are exactly contrary to the one noticed by the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar. There are, however, two blatant errors in the order of the Assistant Collector. Firstly, it is an extremely cryptic rejection of the application of the first respondent and secondly, it noticed the name of the landlord as that of PT for Sy.Nos.182 and 183 and proceeds to say that for Sy.No.184 there is no PT. However, the order of the appellate authority shows that one Nimmagudem Yenkulu was the PT for all three survey numbers, as per the final Agricultural Tenancy statement. In any case, the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar being the primary authority it ought to have gone into these factual aspects including the verification of record after giving due opportunity to both sides and ought to have passed a reasoned order rather than a cryptic order. 6. Learned Joint Collector, on appeal, has recorded several findings said to be based upon the verification of tenancy record, sesala pahanies etc. All these aspects were not examined by the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar and the parties for the first time are confronted with these aspects while in this revision. In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to set aside both the impugned orders and remand the case No.D/4242/2007 to the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations or findings of both the authorities under the impugned orders shall not influence the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar in reconsidering the matter nor any observations of this Court, while disposing of this revision, would have any reflection on fresh consideration. 7. This Court had granted an order of status quo on 17.12.2009 while admitting the revision petition and since the proceedings are remitted for fresh consideration to the primary authority, till the primary authority considers and decides the matter afresh, status quo existing as on today shall continue. The primary authority i.e. the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar – respondent No.3 herein shall consider and decide the matter, after giving opportunity to both sides, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 17, 2011 DSK