THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4985 of 2005 Dated:15th November, 2010 Between: 1. Nandigama Manikyam & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1. Mohd.Omar & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4985 of 2005 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (for short, ‘the Act’) by the unsuccessful appellants 9 to 17 before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, in the appeal filed under Section 90 of the Act assailing the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, on a petition filed under Section 32(1) of the Act for restoration of possession of agricultural lands in old Survey Nos.124, 125, 126 corresponding to new Survey Nos.166, 167, 168 and 169 situated at Farooqnagar village and Mandal. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by Nandigama Manikyam and 8 others are: Myadamoni Shanker and 9 others filed petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar, under Section 32(1) of the Act for restoration of possession of the lands claiming that they are the legal representatives of deceased Dhobi Pochaiah and Kanugu Ananthaiah, who were the protected tenants. One Jahangir Ali was the original pattedar of the lands in question. According to the petitioners before the Mandal Revenue Officer, deceased protected tenants were cultivating the lands till their death. The legal representatives of the original pattedar forcibly evicted them and their father from the lands in question. They also moved an interlocutory application on 22.01.2000 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar, for grant of temporary injunction restraining the legal representatives of the original pattedar from converting the suit lands into non-agricultural purpose. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar, dismissed the petition by order dated 11.02.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, Myadamoni Shanker and 9 others carried the matter in revision before the Joint Collector, who by order dated 08.04.2000 dismissed the revision holding that revision petitioners have no locus standi. The order passed by the Joint Collector came to be challenged by filing W.P.No.6980 of 2000 and the said writ petition ended in dismissal on 27.04.2000. Thereafter, the main petition came to be transferred to the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, by order of the Joint Collector dated 20.09.2000 for final disposal. Pending enquiry before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, Balaiah son of Maisaiah and 6 others filed petition on 20.01.2001 seeking their impleadment in the case. The said petition came to be allowed impleading them as petitioners 11 to 17. The petitioners contended before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, that Dhobi Pochaiah and Kanugu Ananthaiah were the protected tenants of the lands and they were forcibly evicted by the legal representatives of the original pattedar. Therefore, they are entitled to seek restoration of the possession of the lands. The legal representatives of the original pattedar resisted the claim of the petitioners before the Mandal Revenue Officer contending that the original protected tenants surrendered their rights in the year 1950-51 and their surrender came to be accepted by the Tahsildar, by order dated 28.05.1951 in File No.32/51. They also pleaded before the Mandal Revenue Officer that neither the protected tenants nor their legal representatives were in possession of the lands subsequent to the order passed by the Tahsildar on 28.05.1951. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, considered the contentions advanced by the parties and also material brought on record and proceeded to dismiss the application by holding that the protected tenants surrendered their rights over the lands to the original pattedar and that the protected tenants had no subsisting rights over the lands, and therefore, the application filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of possession under Section 32(1) of the Act is not maintainable. The unsuccessful petitioners before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, under Section 90 of the Act. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellants failed to establish that the protected tenants were in possession of the lands in question subsequent to their surrender in the year 1952 and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by order dated 07.03.2005. Relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate Authority reads as hereunder: “After perusing the lower Court orders and connected records, it is noticed that evidently the Appellants are not in possession of the suit lands (Bedakhal) after 1952 onwards. The entries made in Khasra Pahani of 1954 evidences that the P.Ts. were dispossessed prior to 1954-55. The Appellants have not filed any documentary evidence except the certified copies of pahanies pertaining to 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, to the effect that either P.Ts. or their L.Rs. are in possession of the suit lands. Even the pahanies of 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 disclose that the occupants shown in col.No.16 of Pahanies are not the L.Rs. of the deceased P.Ts. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be established that the P.Ts. are in possession of the suit lands and hence, there is no other go except to accept that the P.Ts. have surrendered the tenancy rights in favour of the pattedars. Once the P.T. Rights are no longer subsisting, the question of seeking restoration of the possession of the suit lands u/s.32(1) of Tenancy Act will not arise. The contention of the Appellants that all the joint family members have to surrender the P.T. rights including the brothers of the P.T. is not found to be correct as the original Tenants as per Tenancy Register are Dhobi Pochaiah, Kanugu Ananthaiah, and it is evident that Dhobhi Pochaiah has stated in the compromise petition dated 30.04.1951 that the P.Ts. have to cultivate the land for one year i.e., for 1952 and will have no concern nor their L.Rs. will have any right over it for cultivation, before the then Tahsildar, Farooqnagar on 30.4.1951 and Kanugu Ananthaiah stated that he has no right over the suit land. Thus, there is no need to surrender of P.T. Rights by other family members.” Of the 17 appellants before the appellate Authority, only 9 of them have filed this revision under Section 91 of the Act, assailing the order dated 07.03.2005 passed in F1/4/2001. 3. Pending the revision, M/s.Simhapuri Estates, Shadnagar, came to be impleaded as one of the respondents, as per order dated 17.04.2009 passed in CMP No.1697 of 2009. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the primary authority as well as the appellate authority failed to consider the contents of the compromise petition dated 30.04.1951 in File No.32/51 in right perspective and thereby erred in recording a finding that the original tenants viz., Dhobi Pochaiah and Kanugu Ananthaiah surrendered their tenancy rights over the land in question. A further submission has been made that Chandraiah is only one of the joint tenants and therefore, he was not competent to surrender the tenancy rights of other joint tenants. In a way, his contention is that the surrender must be by all the members of the joint family or joint tenants. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Radha Bai v. Banka Chinnayya[1], wherein it has been held that where the land is cultivated jointly by joint tenants of the members of undividied Hindu family, the surrender must be made by all such persons. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further contend that entries made in Khasra Pahani in the year 1964 would not override the entries made in the protected tenancy register and as the name of Chandraiah continued to be as a protected tenant in the statutory register, it was impermissible for the land holders to contend that Chandraiah surrendered his tenancy rights over the land in the year 1952. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the primary authority and the appellate authority perused the material brought on record and came to the conclusion that the original protected tenants surrendered their rights in the year 1952 and therefore, the petitioners even if they are the legal representatives of the original protected tenants cannot claim any right over the lands in question. 8. I have gone through the orders passed by the primary authority and the appellate authority. The petitioners herein along with 7 others approached the primary authority seeking restoration of the lands on the ground that they are the legal representatives of the protected tenants viz., Dhobi Pochaiah and Kanugu Ananthaiah. They failed to place any material to show that the protected tenants were in possession of the lands after 1952. They also failed to place on record any material to show that, after the death of the protected tenants, the petitioners came into possession of the lands. No piece of material is placed on record to show that the protected tenants continued to be in possession of the lands subsequent to 1952. The legal representatives of the original pattedars took a specific plea that the protected tenants surrendered their lands in the year 1952 and the same came to be recorded by the Tahsildar on 28.05.1951. The primary authority had verified the earlier proceedings whereunder the original protected tenants surrendered the lands and came to the conclusion that after 1952, the protected tenants never cultivated the lands. Even the entries in the Khasra Pahanies of the year 1954-55 indicate that the protected tenants had given-up their rights over the land. Oral surrender of the tenancy rights was permissible prior to 1954. Even otherwise, the surrender of the lands by the protected tenants was recorded by the Tahsildar basing on the compromise memo filed by Chandraiah and Pochaiah. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 91 of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15th November, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C. R. P. No.4985 of 2005 Dated:15th November, 2010 [1] AIR1968 A.P. 353