THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PEITITON No.2617 of 2008 DATED:2.2.2011 BETWEEN SUKKA MUTYALU & ANOTHER …PETITIONERS AND THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & M.R.O & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PEITITON No.2617 of 2008 ORDER: - This Writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad upon the appeal petition dated 04.02.2008 presented by the petitioners herein against the order dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity, the Act of 1950). The petitioners herein, claiming to be successors of the protected tenant in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 69, 70/1, 71/1 and 75 of Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed an application before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for grant of succession in respect of the protected tenancy and seeking restoration of possession of the subject land under Section 32 of Act 1950. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, being of the opinion that the petitioners would have to approach the Civil Court for grant of succession, rejected their application. Aggrieved thereby, they filed an appeal before the Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Thereon the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District acting on behalf of the Collectorate issued an endorsement directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, East to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. This endorsement is dated 4.02.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court. This Court by order dated 14.02.2008, while admitting the writ petition, directed status quo obtaining as on that day with regard to the entries in the revenue records to be maintained. Thereafter, by order dated 29.05.2008 interim directions were granted to the effect that the respondents in the writ petition should not alter the nature of the land until further orders. During the pendency of this writ petition, as many as ‘28’ parties got impleaded claiming interest over the subject land and contesting the case put forth by the writ petitioners. Heard Sri Tulasi Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel representing respondent No.6, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.30, Sri S.Varahagiri for some of the other impleaded contesting respondents, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of the State. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed on merits in the light of the legal position established through various judgments of this Court, the fact remains that under Section 90 of the Act of 1950, an appeal lies from every order other than an interim order passed by the Tahsildar /Deputy Collector to the Collector. The Order dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, not being an interim order, is therefore amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 90 of the Act of 1950. The contention of Sri Tulasi Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the appeal lies only to the Collector and it was therefore not open to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, acting on behalf of the Collectorate to delegate the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, East. I find merit in this contention. In terms of the statutory provision, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District representing the Collector, ought to have himself entertained and adjudicated the appeal on merits. However, I am disinclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the appellate authority did not discharge its function, this Court should entertain the challenge against the order dated 21.3.2007. The fact remains that aggrieved by the said order, the appellate remedy under section 90 of the Act of 1950 has already been availed. It is not open to the petitioners to simultaneously challenge the order dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District before this Court. They would necessarily have to exhaust the appellate remedy availed by them. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, respondent No:2, to adjudicate the petitioners’ appeal filed against the order dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within four (4) weeks from today. The interim order granted by this Court shall continue to be in force till the disposal of the appeal. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date:2.2.2011 Gurc/sp. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PEITITON No.2617 of 2008 DATED:2.2.2011