THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.NO.3416 OF 2005 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar dated 19-03-2005 whereunder the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar dated.16-12-2000 in file No.B/4364/1997 was confirmed. As can be seen from the record, one B.Prathap Reddy was the protected tenant of the lands in Sy.Nos.15 and 196 to an extent of Ac.10.24 guntas and Ac.24.25 guntas respectively and the respondents 1 and 2 claimed that they are brothers of the protected tenant and in a family partition dated 15-03-1989 the lands in Sy.No.15 has fallen to the share of the first respondent and the lands in Sy.No.196 has fallen to the share of the second respondent and they have requested for mutation of their names in the tenancy records deleting the name of B.Prathap Reddy. The Madal Revenue Officer passed an order on 11-04-1991. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein claimed that he is the land lord of the suit lands and was not served with any notice. The M.R.O found that notice was sent to the revision petitioner and it was received by his own brother Damodar Reddy, who was an I.A.S Officer and there is no material to show that there are any differences between the family members and held that there was service of the notice. This fact was also accepted by the Joint Collector. The fact that Prathap Reddy was the protected tenant of the suit lands and his brothers were joint and if the tenancy rights for the benefit of the joint family, they can be mutated is not in dispute. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that other brothers of the revision petitioner have not objected to the mutation. In fact though some land ceiling declarations were said to have been filed, the revision petitioner did not file any declaration or certificate that he claimed rights in the properties which were under the tenancy of the protected tenant-Prathap Reddy. When once the fact that the brother of the respondents 1 and 2 is a protected tenant on behalf of the family and when once partition has taken place between the members, the consequential changes in the tenancy register will not in any way destroy the rights of the protected tenant. Evidently, the application for grant of ownership certificate was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The present application is filed by the revision petitioner in the year 2000 to cancel the order passed in 1991. It is difficult to believe that there is no information to the revision petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of changing the names of the protected tenant in between the family members as per the partition and in view of the above circumstances the order passed by the Joint Collector does not call for any interference and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 15-07-2011 TSNR