IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO.5756 OF 2000 Date:18.03.2010 Between:- Sumitra Bai (died per L.Rs.) ..Revision Petitioners/Appellants And Ramlu and others .. Respondents/Respondents ORDER:- In this Revision, the petitioners challenge the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.F2/3795/1996 dated 23.10.2000. 2. While the petitioners are landlords, respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Sri Basaiah, who was declared as a protected tenant to an extent of Ac.1-34 ½ guntas in Survey No.121 of Madharam village of Pargi Mandal. Though the petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of Ac.3-29 guntas in the said survey number, the said Basaiah obtained a protected tenancy certificate to the extent of Ac.1-34 ½ guntas. Petitioners allege that the respondents surrendered the protected tenancy rights in the year 1953. However, the respondents approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi in the year 1986 and filed an application for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said application was allowed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi by order dated 15.05.1987 in File No.B/2858/86. Against the said order, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which was allowed under order dated 05.05.1990 in File No.B4/6779/87. The said appeal order was questioned by the respondents herein before this Court in C.R.P.No.2024 of 1990. The said C.R.P. was allowed by this Court by holding that parties have not placed correct facts and pleadings before the Joint Collector including pleadings with reference to O.S.No.16 of 1978, which was filed by one Manik Prabhu against the respondents herein before the District Munsif, Pargi. This Court, therefore, remanded the matter to the Joint Collector giving liberty to both sides to appear before the Joint Collector and substantiate their positions. After remand, the Joint Collector has passed the impugned order dated 23.10.2000 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, questioned the said order in this C.R.P. 3. Heard Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Rajmalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 4. A reading of the impugned order shows that after the remand by this Court, fresh enquiry notices were issued to both parties and the petitioners’ counsel had placed reliance upon a decision in AIR 1941 Bombay 144 and brought the notice of the Joint Collector the admission of surrender of tenancy rights in the pleadings of the respondents in O.S.No.16 of 1978 referred to above. 5. Learned Joint Collector, while considering the appeal, however, did not decide the appeal on the said ground and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on an entirely different ground that instead of proceeding under Section 32(1) of the Act, M.R.O. could have restored the possession of the respondents by exercising powers under Section 38-E of the Act. The learned Joint Collector was, therefore, of the view that the appeal itself did not lie if the order of the M.R.O. is construed as one under 38-E of the Act. It is, therefore, clear and apparent that a direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.2024 of 1990 referred to above was lost sight of by the learned Joint Collector while considering and deciding the appeal afresh. This Court had directed both parties to place correct facts including the pleadings in O.S.No.16 of 1978 before the Joint Collector and substantiate their respective positions. The matter, therefore, has to be decided in accordance with the said material substantiated by the parties. Unfortunately, the Joint Collector proceeded to decide the appeal on an entirely different aspect and the direction of this Court in the C.R.P. aforesaid was not given effect to. 6. Though both the learned counsel made various submissions on merits and though it is urged that this Court would go into the merits and decide the matter once for all, I am not inclined to consider the matter on merits in view of the fact that direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.2024 of 1990 has to be given effect to and the Joint Collector has to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the said order and the material substantiated by both the parties before the Joint Collector. All contentions of the respondents as well as the petitioners are, therefore, kept open and are not decided so as to avoid any prejudice to any of the parties. 7. C.R.P. is accordingly allowed and the appeal in File No.F2/3795/1996 dated 23.10.2000 shall stand remitted to the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and he shall decide the same, in accordance with law in the light of the observations made herein, as early as possible, but in any case, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 18th March 2010. Note:- Furnish C.C. within one week. B/o AMD