THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2713 OF 2005 DATED JULY, 2010 BETWEEN Buddi Chandra Reddy and Others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, R.R.District at Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2713 OF 2005 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1950’). The appellate order dated 03.05.2005 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, in exercise of powers under Section 90 of the Act of 1950 is under challenge. The petitioners herein were appellants 7 to 16 in the said appeal bearing Case No.F2/5129/2000. Respondents 3 to 7 herein were the respondents in the said appeal. Respondents 8 to 18 herein were the other appellants in the appeal and are shown to be unnecessary parties to the Civil Revision Petition. By the order 03.05.2005, the appellate authority reversed the orders dated 09.06.2000 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram, in Case No.D/1036/95, in respect of the Government lands in Survey Nos.534/1 and 534/2 of Maheshwaram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and confirmed the orders of the said officer in respect of the other lands. The subject appeal along with another appeal were therefore dismissed by the order dated 03.05.2005. Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the contesting Respondents 5, 6 and 7 entered appearance through learned counsel, Sri A.Sekhar Reddy, he did not choose to assist the Court and put forth his clients’ case in spite of the matter being adjourned for his appearance on 01.07.2010, 08.07.2010 and again on 15.07.2010. In fact, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter was listed under the caption “For Orders” on 15.07.2010 to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to appear and assist the Court but he failed to do so. Hence, this Court has no option but to pass orders in the matter basing on the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioners that originally one late Syed Ghousuddin obtained a lease from the landlord, one Ahmed Bin Nazir, and was cultivating the leased land. Thereafter, one Doma Yella Reddy and one Chakali Jangaiah are said to have jointly cultivated the land along with him. However, Chakali Jangaiah left the land on his own accord in the year 1951, by orally surrendering his tenancy rights and thereafter, when the landlord offered to sell the land, Doma Yella Reddy also backed out. Thereupon, Syed Ghousuddin alone purchased the said land through registered sale deed dated 17.01.1953, which was executed after obtaining due permission from the Deputy Collector, Eastern Division, under the proceedings dated 04.11.1952. It is the case of the petitioners herein that overlooking these aspects, late Doma Narsimha Reddy, the third respondent herein was granted succession rights under Section 40 of the Act of 1950 in the year 1994, recognizing him as the heir of late Doma Yella Reddy who had died in the year 1963. Six years thereafter, late Doma Narsimha Reddy filed an application under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 seeking restoration of possession of the protected tenancy lands. It was the case of Doma Narsimha Reddy that his father had been dispossessed by the co-tenant, Syed Ghousuddin, in the year 1959-60. However, without giving the petitioners herein due opportunity, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, passed the orders dated 09.06.2000 holding that late Doma Yella Reddy was the original joint protected tenant to an extent of 1/3rd share in the protected tenancy lands known as ‘Koneru Bavi Lands’ and he was dispossessed by Syed Ghousuddin in the beginning of the Agricultural Year 1959-60. He therefore directed restoration of possession of the lands identified by him under Section 32(1) of the Act of 1950 to respondents 4 to 7 herein, who were the petitioners before him after coming on record as the Legal Representatives of late Doma Narsimha Reddy. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 90 of the Act of 1950 which was dismissed by the order dated 03.05.2005, now under challenge. Perusal of the order dated 03.05.2005 indicates that the appellate authority merely relied on the P.T. Register and Pahani extracts of two years and opining that oral surrender of protected tenancy rights was not valid, dismissed the appeal excluding the lands, which according to him, belonged to the Government. Sri Suresh Shiva Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that all through the proceedings, various crucial aspects had been ignored by the primary and appellate authorities. He drew the attention of the Court to the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram, wherein the officer referred to the adjournment of the matter on several occasions owing to the officer not sitting due to urgent work. The learned counsel therefore contended that his clients ought not to have been denied the opportunity of filing a counter because of the lapse on their part in not attending some of the hearings. He pointed out that the appellate authority did not consider the aspect of delay on the part of respondent 3 in filing the petition under Section 32 of the Act of 1950. He placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in PONNALA NARSING RAO v. NALLOLLA PANTAIAH[1] in this regard. Dealing with the aspect of limitation in the filing of an application under Section 32 of Act of 1950, the Supreme Court observed: “3. So far as the second contention is concerned, it is true that though no express period of limitation is provided for filing application under Section 32 of the Act, such applications have to be moved within reasonable time. It may be because of such belated applications, the other side may stand adversely affected. It may have changed its position in the meantime. Equities may have arisen in his favour, he may have spent large amounts on land by improving it. ……….” The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in A.NARASIMHA v. A.KRISHNA[2]. The learned Judge held that an application filed under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 thirty years after dispossession was not maintainable as it was not filed within a reasonable time. In BHEEMATI DAWOOD v. MADICHETTY RACHAIAH[3], a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with surrender of the protected tenancy under Section 19 of the Act of 1950 observed that the prime requirement was that such surrender should take place in the presence of the concerned Tahsildar and once such requirement is complied with, the same could not be questioned. The learned Judge observed that if a person who is alleged to have surrendered his tenancy remains silent for a sufficiently long time after such surrender, an inference as to its validity can necessarily be drawn. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon this observation as Doma Yella Reddy was allegedly dispossessed in the Agricultural Year 1959-60 and died thereafter only in the year 1963. There is no evidence on record to show that he protested against such alleged dispossession at any point of time prior to his demise. Relying o n PONNALA NARSING RAO1 the learned Judge in BHEEMATI DAWOOD2 held that the application filed under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 after a lapse of 31 years was belated. I n MOHD. HASHAM v. DONTARAMONI NARSIMHA[4], a learned Judge of this Court held that if no proper enquiry is conducted by the primary authority under Section 32 of the Act of 1950, even if the appellate authority passes a well reasoned order, the matter would require re-examination by the primary authority so as to invite a decision on all the aspects. In the present case, neither the primary authority nor the appellate authority dealt with the aspect of delay or the validity of the surrender of the protected tenancy rights by Doma Yella Reddy, alleged to have taken place in the year 1953. Further, it is noticed that in spite of there being no evidence as to the division of shares amongst the protected tenants, Syed Ghousuddin, Doma Yella Reddy and Chakali Jangaiah, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, allotted specific lands identified by him to the share of respondents 3 to 7 herein. Such an exercise could not have been undertaken by him under Section 32 of the Act of 1950. If it was a case of partition of lands amongst joint tenants, the remedy was not under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 but before the competent Civil Court by way of a partition suit. This aspect was also completely overlooked by both the authorities. The orders of the appellate authority, the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, dated 03.05.2005 and the primary authority, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, dated 09.06.2000 are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, (presently the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal), Ranga Reddy District for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. This exercise shall be completed within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authorities shall pass reasoned orders, duly communicating the same to the parties. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. ________ JULY, 2010. VGSR [1] (1998) 9 SCC 183 [2] 2005 (4) ALT 784 [3] 2004 (4) ALT 402 [4] 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 516