IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3307 OF 2006 BETWEEN: M.Ramanjaneyulu and others. …PETITIONERS AND Baptist Preston Institute of Old Students, Minorities Educational Welfare Society, Jangaon, and others. …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3307 OF 2006 O R D E R: The revision petitioners are challenging the order of the Joint Collector, dated 20.05.2006. They are the respondents before the Joint Collector, who are shown as respondents Nos.7 to 38. According to them, Ravula Chenchaiah was said to be a protected tenant and respondents 1 to 5 are said to be the legal representatives entitled to his share of the property to an extent of Acs.33.29 Gts. 2. The property was originally purchased by Rev. Ruther Ford Padri and Vundru Padri for the benefit of American Baptist Foreign Mission Society and that was a subject matter of dispute in Company Petition No.109 and 110 of 1973 on the file of the Madras High Court. Earlier some of the tenants have filed an application and the lower Courts have rejected the same and ultimately the Supreme Court in its judgment has ordered for issue of Tenancy Certificate to two other persons, who are found to be the tenants of the original owners. The said judgment was reported in AIR 1989 SC 1753. Subsequently, an application was also moved before the Mandal Revenue Officer by the heirs of Ravula Chenchaiah for restoration of possession and the revision petitioners herein subsequently claims to have purchased the property from them. According to the revision petitioners, a compromise was entered between the respondents 1 to 5 and Property Association of Baptist Churches represented by respondent No.6 before the Joint Collector. After recording the compromise, the Mandal Revenue Officer has passed the order restoring the possession to respondents 1 to 5 and thereby being convinced with the title of respondents 1 to 5, the revision petitioners claims to have purchased the property. But, subsequently the respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition have raised an objection about the tenability of the compromise and also about the title of Property Association of Baptist Churches to enter into such compromise and the Joint Collector by order dated 20.05.2006 passed the impugned order holding that the compromise cannot be recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Supreme Court has not recognized Property Association of Baptist Churches as the owner of the property in the earlier proceedings and further-more, it was found that the land under dispute is an urban land the provisions of the Tenancy Act are not applicable and consequently allowed the objections raised by respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition and cancelled the proceedings under the compromise, which consequently effected the rights of the revision petitioners before this Court. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Joint Collector is legal and sustainable? 4. P O I N T: As can be gathered from the series of the litigation between the parties and also the arguments from both the counsel, it is not yet decided as to who is the successor or owner of the original persons, who have acquired the properties for the purpose of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. It is not in dispute the rights of Property Association of Baptist Churches were also not recognized by the Supreme Court. As the matter stands the title or succession to the properties is in serious dispute because the claim is made by Property Association of Baptist Churches and also American Baptist Foreign Mission Society title as claimed by American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, who filed the application in C.R.P.M.P.No.5242 of 2010 to implead him as a party interested in the revision and to recognize the rights as a title holder of the property as a Pattedar. 5. Evidently, the scope of the revision in this case is only limited to the extent whether the compromise recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer is valid or not and as to whether the Joint Collector was justified in not recording the compromise and setting aside the same. If once the compromise is found to be not valid, then the revision petitioner cannot get any rights and objections raised by respondents 1 and 2 about the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer have to be upheld. Evidently, a compromise can be entered only between the persons having title or interest in the property. The Joint Collector is a competent authority who has to verify the revenue records and come to an opinion as to whether the records reflect the title or ownership of the property. From the narration of the facts and also the earlier litigation between the parties, the Property Association of Baptist Churches with whom a compromise is recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer between the respondents 1 to 5 is not recognized as a owner of the property. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the restoration or the rights if any granted to respondents 1 to 5 before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the consequential alienations in favour of the revision petitioners were not rightly recognized by the Joint Collector. The parties are therefore have to establish their rights in a regular civil suit as to the ownership of the property and as to whether Property Association of Baptist Churches is the owner or the title claimed by American Baptist Foreign Mission Society is true or not and it is needless to say that if the said matter is pending before the Madras High Court any decision rendered between the parties will be final. 6. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with a liberty for the parties to establish their rights under law open in proper forum. There shall be no order as to costs. The C.R.P.M.P.No.5242 of 2010 is also dismissed. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 20-04-2011. INL