HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6100 OF 2005 Date:18-11-2011 Between: Cheerla Hanumanthu and two others. - - - Petitioners/ Respondents/ Respondents. And Bandaru Ramulu and twelve others. - - - Respondents/ Petitioners/ Petitioners. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6100 of 2005 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar dated 13-06-2005 made in Case No.F1/8/2002, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The Petitioners herein are the Respondents in Case No.F1/8/2002, which was preferred under Section 90 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short, ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the orders of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy in Case No.G/274/2002, dated 04-09-2002 over the land in Survey No.87, to an extent of Ac.4-39 guntas situated at Srinivasapur Village, Wanaparthy Mandal. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. One Bandaru Ramulu, Son of Venkata Ramulu ﬁled joint application under Section 32 (1) of the Act, for restoration of the possession of the land in an extent of Ac.4-39 guntas in Survey No.87/1 of Srinivasapur village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District against one Cheerla Hanumanthu and 5 others i.e. Respondents. 4. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, after due enquiry, held that the Petition is not maintainable as the late Bandaru Lachanna himself surrendered his protected tenancy rights over the entire suit land to the Inamdars in the year 1952 and accordingly dismissed the Petition for restoration of the possession filed by the Petitioners. 5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred Appeal before the Joint Collector in case No.F1/8/2002 and after due enquiry, the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar partly negatived the observation of the M.R.O. and remitted back the matter to the concerned M.R.O. for fresh consideration. Being aggrieved, the Respondents filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. The leaned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners mainly attacked the ﬁnding of the Joint Collector that under Section 3 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (For short, ‘the Inams Abolition Act’) the protected tenancy rights would be extinguished from 20-07-1955 and the lands shall be vested with the Government and that the order of the learned Joint Collector do not speciﬁcally read under what basis the M.R.O. has to conduct denovo enquiry. Therefore, in any case, the order of the Joint Collector is not sustainable and accordingly it is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents fairly conceded that the order of the Joint Collector is with ambiguity regarding the apportionment of the land on which the case was remitted back to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy and they also sought for remanding the matter to the M.R.O. Wanaparthy for just and reasonable adjudication. 8. Now the points for consideration are : 1) Whether the impugned order dated 13-06-2005, is sustainable? And 2) Whether this is a ﬁt case where the matter is to be remanded back to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy for fresh adjudication? 9. It is the case of the Appellants that they are the legal heirs of one late Bandaru Lachanna who is the protected tenant in respect of the suit schedule lands and his name was recorded in the Revenue Records. It is asserted by the Respondents that the applicants who belongs to late Bandaru Lachanna are not entitled nor they succeeded to the so called protected tenancy rights from the said Bandaru Lachanna who made oral surrender of his rights in favour of the land owners in the year 1952. The M.R.O. veriﬁed the records submitted by both the parties and evaluated the evidence on record and held that the petition ﬁled by the claimants was not maintainable as Bandaru Lachanna himself surrendered his protected tenancy rights over the entire suit land to the Inamdars in the year 1952. However, the Joint Collector in the Appeal noticed from the revenue records that in Survey No.87/1 an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas found to be Inam Land, whereas in survey No.87/2 an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas classiﬁed as patta. The entries made in Khasra Pahani reveals that the protected tenancy was dispossessed forcibly during the year 1954-55 and therefore it cannot be said that the protected tenant has orally surrendered his rights in favour of the land holder and that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Gadwal issued O.R.C. for the entire land of Ac.4-39 guntas including the patta land of 0-39 guntas and that the Respondents failed to produce any document that the father of the Applicants surrendered his rights prior to 1954. The Joint Collector has not satisﬁed about the enquiry made by the M.R.O. in the initial stage. 10. A cursory reading of the impugned order of the Joint Collector is not speciﬁc to what extent he diﬀered with the ﬁndings of the M.R.O. Simply he endorsed that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy erred in passing the orders. Therefore, for better adjudication of the matter, it is just and necessary to remand the matter to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy for fresh consideration after giving necessary opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13-06-2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy for fresh adjudication, on merits, as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are at liberty to raise their respective contentions before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Wanaparthy. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 18-11-2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 160 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6100 OF 2005 November, 18, 2011 DSH.