IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4729 of 2007 Between: Smt. Nallamoni Pochamma & others … Petitioners And: The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4729 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.06.2007 in Case No.F2/4592/2005 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, wherein, the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein under Section 90 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed confirming the order dated 22.07.2005 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal in case No.B/1709/2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader for the State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, under Section 32 of the Act seeking possession of the land in Sy.Nos.200 to 204, an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas of Budvel village, Rajendranagar Mandal and for eviction of the respondents from the said land. According to the petitioners, they are the protected tenants over the said land and have got a succession order under Section 40 of A.P. Tenancy Act by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal on 25.04.1992. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after issuing notice to both parties, enquired into the matter and by order dated 22.07.2005 dismissed the said application as not maintainable holding that the petitioners have not established that they are the protected tenants in respect of the schedule lands. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy district. By impugned order dated 30.06.2007, the learned Joint Collector, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the lands in Sy.Nos.202, 203 and 204 are in possession of A.P. Agricultural University and the lands in Sy.Nos.200 and 201 are covered by the houses and therefore, they are not agricultural lands and there can be no question of protected tenancy over the said lands. 4. It is not disputed that an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.202, Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.203 and Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.204 were acquired for the purpose of Agricultural University and the same is in possession and enjoyment of the Agricultural University. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 16.04.2006 submitted to the Collector, Ranga Reddy, the lands in Sy.Nos.200 and 201 are covered by the houses. The learned Joint Collector dismissed the appeal on the ground that another application for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Act in respect of the lands, which are not agricultural lands, is not maintainable. Admittedly, the lands in Sy.Nos.200 and 201 were originally agricultural lands. When that is so, it is not known when they were converted into non-agricultural lands and how the houses came up in those lands in Sy.Nos.200 and 201 without there being any conversion into non-agricultural purpose. The learned Joint Collector ignored the fact that originally the lands were agricultural lands and did not enquire in to the aspects as to how and when they were converted into non-agricultural lands and how the structures could come up over the said lands. Simply because some houses have come up over the lands here and there, the nature of the lands being agricultural lands does not cease to be so in the absence of any conversion of the lands by proper proceedings. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Joint Collector, without conducting any proper enquiry, are held unsustainable and the same are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, for fresh enquiry into the matter, after giving notice to both sides and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 07.04.2011 bss