THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.NO.3569 OF 2003 ORDER:- The revision is filed against the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated 19-04-2003 in F2/2231/2001. The revision petitioners questioned the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Ghatkesar dated 26-02-2001 in granting Section 32 certificate of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,1950 to an extent of Ac.38.12 guntas to respondent Nos.2 and 3, who claimed to be a protected tenants of one D.Maisaiah. One D.Maisaiah filed an application for issuance of certificate under Section 32 of the Act with regard to 1/4th share in Sy.Nos.109 and 111 to 116 of Yamnampet Village and during the pendency of that petition, he died and respondents were brought on record and the M.R.O passed an order restoring possession of 1/4th share and as against that order, an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioners and the matter was remanded to the M.R.O for giving an opportunity to all the parties. Thereafter, necessary notices have been given and the matter was posted for several adjournments and on 28-10-2000 as the petitioners remained ex parte, the evidence was recorded and on verification of the records, the M.R.O passed an order holding that the dispute is among the sharers and the legal heirs of protected tenant and there is no dispute with the pattadar and thereafter passed an order for restoring possession of 1/4th share to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Against that order, the appeal was filed before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector having perused the record and also taking note of the contentions that the father of the respondents was a protected tenant and also the name of the father of respondents being recorded as a co- tenant with regard to 1/4th share confirmed the order of the learned M.R.O. A plea of alleged surrender by the co-tenant in 1965 was not believed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the learned Joint Collector confirming the order of the M.R.O is legal and sustainable? POINT: The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that no proper opportunity was given and the petitioners cannot be ousted from possession without determining their rights when once their surrender was made by the original tenant. Evidently, when the order was passed in 1988 also the same dispute was sought to be raised in the appeal and the matter was remanded to the M.R.O and the M.R.O has recorded the reasons as to how the opportunity was given to the petitioners and as to how they have not availed the opportunity. It is to be noted that the petitioners claim to be also tenants and they are not pattadars of the lands. Their plea is that the original tenant Maisaiah has surrendered his 1/4th share. If such surrender is to take place then it should be the original pattadar but no document is filed before the court. No surrender is also recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners in spite of opportunity have not produced any documents and the M.R.O and the learned Joint Collector have found after verification from the records that the plea of the revision petitioners is not true and consequently rejected the claim. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has relied upon the following decisions which have no application to the facts of the case. 1. Rame Gowda(D) by L.Rs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (D)by L.Rs and another ([1]) 2. Syed Abdul Majeed and others Vs. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and others ([2]) 3. Mohammed Hidayat Ali Vs. Alopi Shanker and others ([3]) When the revision petitioners have knowledge of the proceedings and did not participate in the enquiry at the earlier point of time and subsequently after the remand also, they cannot drag on the proceedings for years together to deny the rights of the protected tenants. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision petition and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 17-10-2011 TSNR [1] AIR 2004 S.C. 4609 [2] 2006(5) ALD 348 [3] AIR 1971 A.P. 376