IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THIS THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.848 OF 2010 Between: Panajala Satyanarayana S/o.Late Posetty and others …. Petitioners AND The Joint Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and another …. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.848 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 06-06-2009 passed in F2/1369/2008 on the file of the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioners herein ended in dismissal. 2. Petitioners claim that they are legal representatives of protected tenant, viz., Panajala Pentaiath and therefore they are entitled for grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act’). They submitted an application before the Sub- Collector, Bhongir for grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E the Act. The Sub-Collector, Bhongir, after hearing both the parties, rejected the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Collector, petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda. The Appellate Authority, after considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the landlord filed declaration under the Land Reforms Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 declaring the lands in dispute in his holding and ultimately land ceiling authorities found the land owner as non surplus holder and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of ownership certificate, under Section 38-E of the Act, of the lands in dispute. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioners ended in dismissal on 06-06-2009. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate Authority, which reads as hereunder: “The original PT Register of Bibinagar village and Mandal were verified and it was found that Sri Panjala Pendtaiah’s name is recorded on page No.12 of P.T. Register against the following Sy.No.406, 168, 178, 192, 149, 182, 462, 493 and 499 to extent of Ac.683.22 Gts in Bibinargar Village and Mandal. Further, the appellants have relied upon Lr. No.B/1520/2007 dated 27.06.2007, in which the MRO Bibinagar, has sent a report stating that Sy.No.169, 170 and 172 of Bibinagar village are protected tenancy lands held by Sri Panjala Pentaiah, proving that the provisional list in File No.N/180/75 is a fabricated document. The respondent also produced a certificate bearing No.B/5176/2006, dt.04.10.2007 in which the MRO Bibinagar issued a certificate stating that there are no PTs on Sy.Nos.169, 170 and 172 of Bibinagar Village, which is a factual statement, considering the fact that the provisional list is a fabricated document. I have verified the letter No.B/1520/2007, Dt.27.06.2007 stated to have been issued MRO stating that Sy.No.169, 170 and 172 of Bibinagar Village are protected tenancy lands held by Sri Panjala Pentaiah. The letter of MRO is available at page No.249 of the lower court file. The extract of the protected tenancy registers are available at page No.255 and 257. The attested Xerox copy of PT register in which Sri Panjala Pentaiah was recorded as the protected tenant for the following lands belongings to Chengal Rama Rao. Sy.No. Name of the field Extent 406 Potharaju Gundla Chelka 5.14 168 Marlagadda Bavi 1.36 178 Marlagadda Bavi 1.31 192 Marlagadda Bavi 1.04 149 Kallukundala Adugu Chelka 16.35 182 Jaludubba Chelka 7.31 462 Vusuralvelli Chelka 13.00 493 Vusuravelli Chelka 8.23 499 Vusuravelli Chelka 12.18 Total 68.22 The original PT register has also been verified and found that the Xerox copy available at page No.255 to 257 of the lower court file is the true copy. Thus, it is established that Sri Panjala Pentaiah is the Protected Tenant for the lands shown in the Xerox copy of PT register for an extent of Ac.68.22 Gts. If so whether the appellants are entitled for issue of owner ship certificate Under Section 38-E for the suit lands. The appellants have been recorded as PTs in the PT register as substantiated above. However, the LRT Court has opined that the matter requires detailed enquiry to determine the eligibility of the PTs under provision sub section 7 of 38-E AP (T.A) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Further the lower court rejected the 38-E application on the ground that the lands held by the respondents is less than 2 times the family holding and as such the appellants are not entitled for ownership certificate against the land held by the respondents even if they are considered as Protected Tenants. In the view of the above this court is not competent to adjudicate on the appeal petition of the appellants since the LRT Orders can be decided by the LRAT only & therefore the appeal is rejected as this Court is not the appellate authority, the appellants may approach the relevant authority for redressal.” Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate Court having recorded that Panjala Pentaiah as the protected tenant for the lands shown in the PT register to an extent of Acs.68.22 Gts., has committed serious error in not granting ownership certificates in favour of the petitioners, who are none other than the legal representatives of the protected tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the land holder does not possess more than two holdings and therefore, the question of granting ownership certificate in favour of the protected tenant, does not arise. A further submission has been made that the landlord has filed declaration of the lands, including the lands in question and ultimately, the Land Ceiling Authorities found the landlord is non surplus holder. 6. The factual aspect of landlord being declared as non surplus holder even after including the lands in question appears to be not in serious dispute. Such is the situation, the order passed by the Joint Collector does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, warranting interference of this Court under Section 91 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J August 02, 2010. KTL