THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2702 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in case No.F2/3783/2005 dated 15.04.2006 of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. One Akbar Sab was the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.368 to an extent of Ac.8-17 guntas situated at Gowdevelly village and one Duddu Chittaiah was recorded as protected tenant in the year 1953. The pattedar has offered to sell the land to P.T. holder and as the protected tenant was unable to purchase the entire land one Koreni Yellaiah @ Yelluga, the ancestor of the respondents herein, purchased an extent of Ac.4-08 guntas by paying the sale consideration and the protected tenant Chittaiah executed a sale agreement and relinquished his protected tenancy rights on 05.02.1953 and delivered possession. A registered sale deed was also executed by the original pattedar on 19.10.1953 and the name of Yellaiah was recorded in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.4-08 guntas and the name of Duddu Chittaiah was recorded as a protected tenant for an extent of Ac.4-09 guntas. While the matters stood thus, the protected tenant Duddu Chittaiah filed an application under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal (for short “MRO”) for restoration of the possession of Ac.4-08 guntas of land and the same was dismissed by the MRO and also by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy and against that order the matter was carried in revision to this Court and in C.R.P.No.1243 of 2002 this Court has directed the MRO to make an enquiry and after making such enquiry, the MRO passed an order for handing over of possession of Ac.4-08 guntas and as against that the appeal was preferred to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, who allowed the appeal holding that there was already a surrender and that Yellaiah has purchased the property. Questioning that order, the present revision is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether Duddu Chittaiah, the ancestor of the revision petitioners, was the protected tenant or entire Ac.8-09 guntas? 2. Whether the restoration of the possession of Ac.4-08 guntas of land is valid? POINTS: Evidently, the ownership of the entire land is not in dispute. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy has found that when once an ownership certificate was issued, the question of handing over the possession does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 1st petitioner herein is not asking for the possession of the property, which is already in his possession, but it is only with reference to Ac.4-08 guntas, which is said to be in possession of the descendants of Yellaiah. The dispute is only with regard to Ac.4-08 guntas and not with regard to the remaining land of Ac.4-09 guntas. As can be seen from the order of the MRO, the Revenue Inspector has inspected the land and Ac.4-09 guntas was said to be in possession of D.Chittaiah, whereas Ac.4-08 guntas is in possession of K.Raghupathi s/o late K.Yellaiah and K.Bhagawan Das. Evidently, the order of the MRO refers to the restoration of Ac.4-08 guntas. The order of the MRO does not deal with the fact that D.Chittaiah has voluntarily surrendered the rights in Ac.4-08 guntas and thereafter the original pattedar has executed the sale deed even in 1953 by which date the surrender in writing is not necessary. In fact, he was only considering with the purchase of other persons without permission from the Tahsildar. But, in this case, such a fact was not mentioned. In fact, so far as the disputed land is concerned, the khasra pahani, which is considered to be a valuable document, the name of the protected tenant is not recorded for the entire property. The Joint Collector has not drawn an inference that since there was no possession of Ac.4-08 guntas, it was not so recorded. Evidently, when ownership rights are said to have been conferred and patta is said to have been issued, no notice was given and the patta relied on by the appellant is not clear about the total extent of Ac.8-17 guntas. As can be seen from the copy of the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division, Ranga Reddy District dated 21.05.1993, after the death of Chittaiah, the ownership certificate was issued only to an extent of Ac.4-09 guntas. As can be seen from the material papers filed before the Court, the original certificate, which was said to have been issued under Sections 35 and 37 of the Act, does not show the extent of the land as being Ac.8-17 guntas. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Joint Collector that by 1954-55, when the khasra pahani was prepared the possession of Chittaiah was not found for the disputed extent of Ac.4-08 guntas, cannot be faulted. There is absolutely no material to show that the ownership certificate was issued in the year 1993 for a total extent of Ac.8-17 guntas. If the claim of the appellant is true, then in the order dated 21.05.1993 the ownership certificate should have been issued for the total extent of Ac.8-17 guntas. Therefore, the possession of Chittaiah or his legal representatives is only valid to an extent of Ac.4-09 guntas and the possession of Ac.4-08 guntas now sought to be claimed by them does not create any rights since as per the material on record the property was already alienated in favour of Yellaiah and their possession and enjoyment was so recorded and it could be only by virtue of the surrender and the sale with the consent of the protected tenant. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the revision petition and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 06-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2702 of 2006 06-09-2011 MR