HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No. 5077 of 2007 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 18-03-2006 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the order dated 06-01- 1995 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal in Case No.B/3211/1994, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner and others have jointly filed a petition under Section 19(1) of the A.P. (T.A) Tenancy of Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘Tenancy Act’) to record the surrender of their protected tenancy rights of the lands in Sy.Nos.13 to 17 admeasuring Ac.32-18 guntas situated at Shahajadiguda village of Medchal Mandal. On verification of the tenancy register of the said village, it revealed that the names of the protected tenants recorded originally were not struck off although the petitioners averred that they had surrendered their P.T. rights in the year 1954. They have also stated that the pattedars issued a notice under Section 38-D of the Act to the petitioners being the tenants stating that they are intending to sell these lands. After expiry of the statutory period of six months of the said notice, they stated that Lokeshwar Rao purchased some of the lands through a registered sale deed and they have also stated that they are not in a position to cultivate the said lands as they had parted with the possession of the same long back. 3. As seen from the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 06-01-1995, the statements of all the petitioners were recorded and all of them in their depositions have stated that they are surrendering their protected tenancy rights voluntarily in respect of those lands. They have also stated that there are no other joint tenants except the petitioners, and accordingly, it was found that the surrender made by the petitioners is voluntary. Accordingly, their names were struck off from the register of Tenancy. Against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 06-01-1995, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was dismissed through the impugned order dated 18-03-2006. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the orders of both the authorities are illegal as they failed to consider the matter on merits. He further argued that the revision petitioner never appeared before the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer and not filed any affidavit surrendering his tenancy rights in respect of the subject property and that no orders have been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 32 and 40 of the Tenancy Act for granting succession P.T. rights and for possession of the land, and without recording the petitioner as protected tenant of the subject lands and without considering those applications, the orders were passed in the application filed under Section 19 of the Act which is illegal and untenable, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, sought for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner surrendered the tenancy rights in respect of the subject property and whether the impugned order is sustainable? 7. A perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the appeal was filed with a delay of five years after the order dated 06-01-1995 was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. As per the impugned order, the petitioners have filed applications under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act for grant of succession certificate being the legal heir of the protected tenant in File No.B/1700/1994 and for resumption of land in File No.B/569/1994. The said applications were pending when the alleged application under Section 19 of the Act was filed. 8. The M.R.O., having satisfied with the material placed before him, passed the order dated 06-01-1995 deleting the name of the said protected tenants basing on the statements recorded from them. It is an admitted fact that the Mandal Revenue Officer passed the orders on 06-01-1995 and the appeal was preferred in the year 1999 almost after a lapse of five years. The learned Joint Collector noted in the impugned order that as per Section 93 of the Tenancy Act, an appeal to be preferred within 60 days from the date of decision or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow. In the present case on hand, the appeal under the impugned order was filed before the Joint Collector almost after a lapse of five years. The Mandal Revenue Officer in unequivocal terms held that he recorded the statements of the claimants, who are the alleged tenants, and all of them in their depositions have stated that they are surrendering the protected tenancy rights voluntarily in respect of those lands. When the petitioners (tenants) themselves voluntarily surrendered the lands, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 06-01-1995 to strike off the names of the protected tenants from the register of the protected tenancy, is quite justified. Though the revision petitioner preferred appeal against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, no sufficient material is placed before the Joint Collector to nullify the alleged statements of the petitioners recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Moreover, the appeal was filed after lapse of five years i.e., beyond the period of limitation and on that ground also, the appeal fails. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 18-03-2006 passed while confirming the order dated 06-01-1995 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, is sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 16-12-2011 YCR