IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 3 2 7 7 OF 2009. Between: K. Ram Reddy (died) Per LRs. … Petitioners-R3, 4 & 5 V/s. Enugu Suryanarayana Reddy & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vedula Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P. Radhakrishna THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3277 OF 2009. O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petiti8on has been filed challenging the orders in File No. F2/1589/2008, dated 02-05-2009 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy district, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district in Proceedings No. B/338/06, dated 01-3-2008 in Case No. B/338/06, dated 02-5-2009 was set aside. 2. The only issue arises for consideration is who is the original tenant, whether Kasireddy Narayan Reddy or Enugu Narayan Reddy ? 3. The learned Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, having verified the original khasra pahani for the years 1954-55 and having observed that there was some manipulation of records, has rejected the claim of the legal heirs of Enugu Narayan Reddy. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed. The Joint Collector, who is the Appellate Authority without going into the merits of the case and only on technical point held that the parties may approach the civil court and that the Mandal Revenue Officer have no right to decide as to who is the protected tenant under section 40 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 advised the petitioner to approach the civil court and to obtain succession certificate. It is not in dispute that when there are rival claims, claiming tenancy rights, it is the authorities under the Act, who has to decide as to who is the real tenant. Civil Court is not competent to decide the matter declaring the tenancy rights under the Act. However, as agreed by both the counsel, the appellate authority i.e., Joint Collector seems to have not decided the case on merits and according to them the matter may be remanded back to the Joint Collector with a specific direction to decide the matter within a specified period on merits. 4. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy with a specific direction to decide the matter on merits within a period of two months from today. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR. 29-06-2010 I s L N.B. Office to furnish CC of the order within two days. B/o. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR. CIVIL REVISIION PETITION NO. 3 2 7 7 OF 2009 Circulation Entry No.78 Date:29-06-2010 Computer - Court Hall No. 36 Court Master: I s L