IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.696 OF 2008 BETWEEN Syed Khasim and two others. …PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector and four others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: MR. M. RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: MR. M. BASWA RAJ The Court made the following: - ORDER: Petitioners claim that they are protected tenants of the land in question admeasuring Ac.9.12 Guntas in Sy.No.45 of Mekka Village, Binchkunda Mandal, Nizamabad District and they are aggrieved by the order of the learned Joint Collector, Nizamabad in proceedings No.D2/4878/2006 dated 02.02.2008. 2. Petitioners claim that they have been granted 38-E certificates under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) and that they were also granted protection of their possession by virtue of an order under Section 32 of the Act passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The said order was, ultimately, the subject matter of CRP.No.3919 of 2006 before this Court and by order dated 19.10.2006 this Court with the consent of both parties remitted the matter to the Joint Collector to pass fresh order on material available on record within a specific time. It was further made clear that if the Joint Collector feels that de novo enquiry is required to be conducted, he is free to remit the matter further to Mandal Revenue Officer to make enquiry and submit a report. Subsequently, after the said remand, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Joint Collector. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a specific ground that the petitioners have no notice when the said impugned order was passed by the first respondent nor there was any opportunity of hearing given to them. It is also contended that the learned Joint Collector got enquiry conducted through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan and based on the said enquiry report, passed the impugned order. 4. It is not in controversy that under the Act, the MRO is the primary authority whereas the Joint Collector is the appellate authority for the purpose of Section 32 of the Act. It is in that view of the matter that this Court had left it open for the Joint Collector to get an enquiry conducted through MRO, if he desires it necessary. However, the Joint Collector got the enquiry conducted through RDO, Bodhan. The further contention of the petitioners that they had no notice of hearing and no opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Joint Collector having remained uncontroverted, I am of the view that the impugned order is not in conformity with the orders of this Court in CRP.No.3919 of 2006 referred to above. 5. In the interest of justice, therefore, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the proceedings No.D2/4878/2006 to the learned Joint Collector, to hear and decide the matter afresh after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties. It is needless to point out that the learned Joint Collector shall abide by the order of this Court in CRP.No.3919 of 2006 referred to above and shall be free to obtain enquiry report, if required, from the MRO concerned. However, pending CRP, this Court directed to maintain status quo existing as on that day by order 19.02.2008. The parties shall abide by the said order dated 19.02.2008 till the Joint Collector passes orders in accordance with the directions above. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 2, 2010 DSK