HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1253 OF 2009 Dated: 27-10-2009 Between: Smt. Sarojini Devi and another ... APPELLANTS AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdi ka pul, Hyderabad and five others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1253 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 14-09-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 25606 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners claiming right in respect of the land in question. 2. It was the case of the appellants – original petitioners before the learned single Judge that one Pedda Butchaiah surrendered protected tenancy rights over the land in question in favour of appellant No.1, who in turn, had sold the land in question to appellant No.2. The said submission was not believed by the learned single Judge for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates and upon perusal of the impugned order and the relevant orders referred to in the impugned order, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge for the reason that name of appellant No.1 – Smt. Sarojini Devi, in whose favour the protected tenancy rights were allegedly surrendered, is not reflected anywhere in the revenue record. 4. Had appellant No.1 been in rightful occupation of the land in question upon purchase of rights of Pedda Buchanna, the said fact would have been reflected in pahani patrikas. But, as on 01-11-1973, the date of vesting, names of three different persons including the heirs of K. Jangaiah (Respondents 3 to 6) were recorded as cultivators and, therefore, the revenue authorities rightly held that K. Jangaiah was entitled to occupancy right certificate at the relevant time and his heirs were rightly given occupancy certificates. 5. The aforestated decision has been supported by the record which was in existence and which has been referred to by the Joint Collector – respondent No.1 in his order dated 24-11-2001. Respondent No.1 had perused whatever record was available at the relevant time and has come to the above conclusion, which has been found to be correct by the learned single Judge. 6. It is pertinent to note that appellant No.1 could not produce any record to show that Pedda Buchanna had surrendered his right in her favour. 7. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal. 8. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2617 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27-10-2009 ks