THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 277 OF 2006 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the order in Case No.F2/6009/2002, dated 27.08.2005 on the file of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing an appeal filed by the revision petitioner questioning issue of a certificate under Section 38-E of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, ‘the Act’) to the respondent. 2. The certificate was said to have been issued on 06.12.1989 and appeal was preferred in 2002 after a period of 12 years. The learned Joint Collector without going into the merits of the case found that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time and therefore, the appeal was rejected. As against that order, the present revision is filed. 3. The learned senior counsel Sri Koka Raghava Rao submits that the property was purchased in the year, 1974 under the registered sale deed and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and issue of the certificate in 1989 is not known to the revision petitioner and it is only 2002 when the notice was given calling for objections for mutation of the name of the respondent, the petitioner came to know about the alleged ownership certificate issued to the respondent. 4. Evidently, according to the revision petitioner, possession has been recorded for a long time in his name. The notice, which was given in 2002, was at the instance of the respondent for changing of the entry in the revenue record to remove the name of the revision petitioner and to enter the name of the respondent, thereby clearly going to show that the name of the revision petitioner was shown in the revenue records by 2002 also. Even if it is to mutate the name of the respondent in the place of the revision petitioner in pursuance of the 38-E certificate, evidently, there is no other remedy when a certificate is issued under Section 38-E of the Act for the effected party and the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit is not permissible. However, in this case, the petitioner claims that till the date of the issue of the notice, the petitioner had no knowledge of the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. In fact an appeal lies against the order to the Joint Collector within a period of sixty days from the date of the order. Under the statute the provisions of Section 5 of the Act are also made applicable because of the situations like this only. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that if knowledge is to be taken into consideration, an affidavit should have been filed before the concerned Joint collector and the copy of it should have been served to the respondent and then only the objections can be considered. He relied on the decisions reported in J.Lakshmamma Vs. District Revenue Officer, Adilabad and others[1] and another decision reported in M.B.Ratnam and others V. Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. District, East Division at Hyderabad and others[2]. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, since the petitioner has not filed any application to condone the delay or affidavit explaining the reasons for not preferring the application, which was served on the other side, I feel in the interest of justice, an opportunity can be given to the revision petitioner to file necessary application to condone the delay for filing of the appeal before the Joint Collector and after giving notice to the respondent and after hearing the objections of the revision petitioner the Joint Collector is to dispose of the application for the condonation of the delay and take further steps. 7. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 29-06-2011. INL [1] 1978 ALT (1) Page 30 [2] 2003(1) ALT 688 (D.B.)