IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TTHIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1321 OF 2008 Between: Uppari Narsimha (died) per L.Rs. and 16 others ..... Petitioners AND Atluri Sitaramaiah (died)per L.Rs. & 5 others ..... Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1321 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 10-01-2008 in Case No.F2/4166/2006 passed by the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and consequently remand the matter for disposal of the same afresh by hearing both parties. 2. Subject matter of this revision is with regard to issuance of tenancy certificate under Section 38-E of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”). 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this revision which are referred in detail in the order in C.R.P. No.2726 of 2003, filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners herein, dated 08-07-2004 passed by this Court are as follows: i) One Dademia was the pattedar of the land admeasuring about Acs.1000-00 to 1200-00 in various survey numbers of Mangalapalli village. One Uppari Kesavulu along with Vadla Narsimha and 13 others was recognized as protected tenant in respect of vast extent of land in Survey Nos.80 to 111 (old) corresponding to new Survey Nos.322, 325 to 330. An application was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East by the petitioners herein for conferment of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Act for the lands in which they were protected tenants. The original respondent Atluri Sitaramaiah, father of the respondents herein, filed objection petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer contending that the petitioners herein were not the protected tenants in respect of certain extents of land in various survey numbers and that they surrendered their tenancy rights on 16-12-1966 under Section 19 of the Act. Permission to purchase the land admeasuring Acs.88-00 in new Survey Nos.322, 325 to 3330 was obtained from the Tahasildar vide proceedings dated 28-02-1967 and thereafter he, Atluri Sitaramaiah, purchased the same through the sale deed dated 28-07-1967. ii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, ultimately, passed the order dated 24-09-1983 conferring ownership rights on the petitioners herein in respect of Acs.76-00 of land in Survey Nos.324 to 328. Assailing the same, respondents herein filed an appeal before the learned Joint Collector and the Joint Collector by order dated 05-01-1988, observing that there was dispute as to the identity of the lands as well as the validity of surrender of tenancy rights, set aisde the order dated 24-09-1983 of the Revenue Divisional Officer and remanded the matter for de nova enquiry with a specific direction to frame necessary issues and decide the matter after examining the evidence on record. iii) Then, on fresh enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer vide order dated 29-11-1999 rejected the claim of the petitioners herein holding that the lands in question were not held by them as protected tenants. On that the petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector and he reversed the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in the order dated 29-11-1999 and ultimately held that the petitioners herein are entitled to be conferred ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Act in respect of the lands held by them. Thus, the learned Joint Collector affirmed the order dated 24-09-1983 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the first round of litigation. 4. Now what all the petitioners contend is that the Joint Collector has discussed in detail about the issues and almost decided the dispute, but remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer to take independent decision. 5. Now both sides report that there is no dispute with regard to identity of the land. The land held by the petitioners and their predecessors in title as protected tenants is the same land that was purchased by Atluri Sitaramaiah from his predecessor in title. 6. Therefore, the only question that has to be decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer is whether surrender of tenancy rights on behalf of the petitioners is valid in law and purchase of the same land by the father of the respondents Atluri Sitaramaiah is valid. 7. In the circumstances, it is directed that the impugned order to the extent of remanding the same for fresh enquiry shall stand but the observations of the learned Joint Collector on all the issues discussed shall not have any bearing and it shall not be treated that there are any findings by the learned Joint Collector on the disputed questions. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10-01-2008 in Case No.F2/4166/2006 passed by the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the matter independently uninfluenced by the observations made by the learned Joint Collector after giving notice to both sides and allowing them to lead oral and documentary evidence, if any. As the matter is pending for about two decades, it is directed that the same shall be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J August 13, 2009. PV