THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.3254 and 5708 of 2010 April 22, 2010 Between: Pannala Ram Reddy, S/o.late Bal Reddy … Petitioner And The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.3254 and 5708 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The two writ petitions being interconnected, are heard finally with the consent of the counsel for both the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. The first writ petition is filed by one Pannala Ram Reddy and second writ petition is filed by himself and four others. All of them and statedly few others are legal heirs of Pannala Linga Reddy @ Pamula Lingaiah. To make a long story short, he was protected tenant of lands in survey Nos.271, 272 and 273 admeasuring Acs.17.25 guntas, Acs.11.10 guntas and Acs.11.07 guntas respectively situated at Turkayamjal Village of Hayathnagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, in 1975. Lingaiah statedly was granted ownership certificate under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Tenancy Act). When possession was not restored, legal heirs filed an application before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, under Section 32 of Tenancy Act for restoration of possession. As the application was not disposed of, legal heirs filed W.P.No.23495 of 2006. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 13.7.2006 directing the Tahsildar to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The Tahsildar passed orders on 23.12.2008 restoring the possession and pattadar pass books were also given in favour of petitioners and others. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 7 in the first writ petition filed appeal under Section 90 of Tenancy Act. Their case is that they purchased an extent of Acs.4.00 from petitioners and other legal heirs. In the said appeal, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, while ordering notice of hearing stayed the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 23.12.2008 restoring the possession to petitioners. In the mean while, one G.Ramesh Babu, third respondent in the second writ petition also filed appeal before the Joint Collector. His case was that he was given Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and, therefore, restoration of possession under Section 32 of Tenancy Act is illegal. It appears that a copy of the proceedings bearing No.B/7095/06, dated 30.8.2007, purportedly denied right of restoration of possession. The petitioners disbelieved ownership certificate under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act. Based on the same, Joint Collector passed orders on 18.9.2009 directing the Tahsildar not to implement the orders dated 23.12.2008 whereunder the possession was restored. Assailing the said order, Pannala Ram Reddy and four others filed second writ petition. Though the notice is served on third respondent in second writ petition, none appears for him and, therefore, he is set ex parte. This Court has been taken through various proceedings. The same have been perused. The Court’s attention has been invited to the memo dated 19.3.2008. When the petitioners’ counsel applied for a copy of the proceedings No.B/7095/06, dated 30.6.2007, Tahsildar informed that there is no such proceedings copy in the file. He submits that in view of the non-existent proceedings purportedly denying the right to petitioners, the Tahsildar passed orders on 23.12.2008 restoring the possession to petitioners and other legal heirs. Per contra, learned Counsel for contesting respondents in first writ petition submits that his clients purchased Acs.4.00 from protected tenants and, therefore, there cannot be restoration of possession in respect of the said extent, if they purchased the land from the protected tenants about which there is no dispute. They can as well approach the Tahsildar under Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and appeal under Section 90 of Tenancy Act is not proper. Be that as it is, as the Collector was swayed by a non-existent proceedings dated 30.8.2009 of the Tahsildar, impugned order in second writ petition being No.F2/3947/2009, dated 18.9.2009 is unsustainable. The same is set aside. In view of the same, the order of stay in the other appeal filed by respondents 3 to 7 in first writ petition is unsustainable. Therefore the said order is also liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner. The impugned orders in both the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Joint Collector to pass appropriate orders. Liberty is given to petitioners to withdraw appeal pending before the Joint Collector and approach concerned Tahsildar under RoR Act for necessary changes in record of rights and issue pattadar pass books, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 22, 2010 YS