THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2239 of 2010 ORDER: The father of the 1st petitioner is said to be a protected tenant in respect of an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in survey No.54 and Acs.4.00 in survey No.52 of Adavi Masjid Village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District. The 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. He is said to have purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in survey No.52 from another tenant, by name, Mohd. Qamruddin. The petitioners filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, the 2nd respondent, with a request to issue ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). According to them, Mohd. Sibqathullah, father of respondents 4 to 9, was the original landlord, and that since he held more than two standard holdings of land, they are entitled for issuance of ownership certificate. Through his order, dated 07.03.2008, the 2nd respondent granted ownership certificates in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 4 to 9 filed an appeal, under Section 90 of the Act, before the Joint Collector, Medak, the 1st respondent. The appeal was allowed, on 31.10.2009, and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent, for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners have urged several contentions, touching on the merits of the matter. The 1st respondent recorded findings to the effect that the 2nd respondent did not follow the prescribed procedure and has simply relied upon the report submitted by the subordinate officials. When the valuable rights, in respect of extensive landed property, are involved, every step is required to be taken into account, strictly in accordance with law. Though the 2nd respondent has also undertaken extensive discussion, his finding, as regards the extent of holding of the landlord, was found to be defective. The discussion did not centre around it. Even now the petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any serious detriment. They can put forward all their contentions before the 2nd respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions before the 2nd respondent, who, in turn, shall take the same into account, while passing orders in the matter. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05.02.2010. GJ