IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3372 OF 2003 Between: Sattari Dharma Reddy and another (died) .....PETITIONERS AND Gaddam Krishna Reddy and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3372 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the order, dated 28.06.2003, in File No.F2/3550/93, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, Memo No.A/2048/86, dated 21.05.1993, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchal, Ranga Reddy District, directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Manchal, to handover the possession of lands bearing Survey Nos.178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 186 and 197 of Manchal Village to respondent No.1 herein and others, was confirmed. 2. The case of the petitioners herein is that one Yosufuddin, father of respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein, was the pattadar and owner of the lands bearing Survey Nos.178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 186 and 197 of Manchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After his death, the said lands have been devolved on his wife, namely, Smt. Sardar Begum, and three sons, namely, respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein. Gaddam Chennaiah and Anireddi Papaiah were in possession of the said lands as tenants till 1956 -1957. In view of the compromise between the owners and the tenants in the year 1957 – 1958, the owners came into possession of 40% area of the lands covered by aforementioned survey numbers. The tenants have surrendered their P.T. rights over 40% of the lands in those survey numbers. In the capacity of owners and possessors, the owners have leased out their land to an extent of 40% in favour of one Sattari Narayana Reddy, father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. The said Sattari Narayana Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands as tenant from the year 1958 to 1961 and in the year 1961, he purchased the said lands from the owner and has been in continuous possession till his death in the year 1964. After his death, the petitioners herein succeeded the said lands and are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the lands by paying Land Revenue to the Government. When respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, Anireddi Papaiah and his sons tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein over the said lands, they filed O.S.No.305 of 1984 before the District Munsiff, Ibrahimpatnam and obtained temporary injunction. While so, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed a petition under Section 32 (1) of the Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer for restoration of possession of the said lands. Petitioner No.1 has received a memo dated, 21.05.1993, bearing File No.A/2048/86, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Aggrieved by the said memo, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioners herein. 3. The case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein is that they are the sons of protected tenant by name Gaddam Chennaiah in respect of disputed lands; that they were forcibly evicted by the petitioners herein from the said lands; that therefore, they filed an application under Section 32 (1) of the Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchal, for restoration of possession of the said lands; that after conducting due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed the order, dated 29.02.1993 in File No.A/2048/86 ordering for restoration of possession of the said lands; that since the petitioners have not handed over the possession of the said lands, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the memo, dated 21.05.1993, in File No.A/2048/86 directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to deliver possession of the said lands to the protected tenants; that challenging the order, dated 21.05.1993, the petitioners preferred the appeal before the Joint Collector, which is the appellate authority. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, after considering the merits of the case, confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in pursuance of an oral surrender by the protected tenant, namely, Gaddam Chennaiah, the original owner, namely, Yousuffuddin, came into possession of the said lands; that the original owner leased out the said lands to the father of petitioner No.1 herein; that later, the father of petitioner No.1 herein purchased the said lands; that after the death of father of petitioner No.1, the petitioners were in possession of the said lands; that the petitioners have developed the said lands; that after a lapse of 40 years, the present application is filed and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is a reasonable period seeking for the present relief and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that the petitioners have not challenged the original order, dated 29.02.1993, in File No.A/2048/86, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchal, for restoration of possession of the disputed lands; that the petitioners filed the appeal only challenging the consequential order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 21.05.1993; that the petitioners have not filed any single document to show as to how the father of petitioner No.1 came into possession of the said lands as a tenant or purchaser of lands in dispute; that if the petitioners want to claim any equities, there must be some pleading and evidence to establish the same; that in the absence of any challenge to the original order, the question of setting aside the consequential order does not arise and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 6. Under Section 32 (1) of the Act, a tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of this Act may apply to the Tahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for such possession. 7. No doubt, there is no limitation prescribed under Section 32 or any of the provisions of the Act with regard to time limit for filing such an application, but the Honourable Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao v. Nallolla Pantaiah and others[1], held thus: “So far as the second contention is concerned, it is true that though no express period of limitation is provided for filing application under Section 32 of the Act, such application have to be moved within reasonable time. It may because of such belated applications, the other side may stand adversely affected. It may have changed its position in the meantime. Equities may have arisen in his favour, he may have spent large amounts on land by improving it. But all these questions have to be pleaded and proved. Surprisingly, no such contention was ever canvassed much less tried to be proved on any equitable ground by the petitioner. Therefore, this second contention on the facts of the present case cannot be sustained. It has also to be noted that no plea of adverse possession was put forward by the petitioner in support of his case.” In view of the above decision, an application filed under Section 32 of the Act has to be moved within reasonable time. Whether the application under Section 32 (1) of the Act is moved by the protected tenants, who were said to be dispossessed from the lands in dispute, within a reasonable time or not, has to be decided by the primary authority, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the year 1986, the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 32 (1) of the Act for restoration of possession of lands under dispute. It seems that after conducting due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, vide order dated 29.02.1993, in File No.A/2048/86, ordered for restoration of possession of the lands in question in favour of protected tenants. That order has not been challenged. What is challenged before the appellate authority is the memo, dated 21.05.1993, in File No.A/2048/86, which is a consequential memo issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the said lands from the petitioners and handover the same to the protected tenants i.e., respondent No.1 and others. So long as the original order is not under challenge, the question of setting aside the consequential order does not arise. Therefore, whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 have come to the primary authority within the reasonable time or not cannot be adjudicated in this Civil Revision Petition because the original order ordering restoration of possession in favour of respondents is not under challenge before the appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 03, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3372 OF 2003 March 03, 2011 [1] (1998) 9 SCC 183