IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY (1ST) of MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3393 of 2005 Between: Syed Hafeezuddin … Petitioner And: The Joint Collector, Karimnagar & others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3393 of 2005 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2005 in File No.F1/101/2002 on the file of the Joint Collector, wherein said appeal filed by the respondents 3 and 4 herein under Section 90 of A.P. Telangana Area Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) was allowed, cancelling the certificate issued under Section 50-B of the Act and terminating the rights of 5th respondent herein. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The revision petitioner is a third party to the proceedings before the Joint Collector. He was granted leave to file the revision in CRP MP No.2901 of 2005, being aggrieved party. One Gopu Bhudamma-5th respondent herein was stated to be the original owner and possessor of the suit land, she having purchased the same from Komatireddy Rajamma under unregistered sale deed dated 25.06.1960 which was subsequently validated under Section 50-B of the Act by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar. The validation certificate dated 06.11.1967 was issued in favour of Bhudevi @ Bhudamma and her name was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1967-68. The 3rd respondent herein filed a suit OS No.1391 of 1990 before the Additional District Munsif, Karimnagar for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, claiming to be the owner and possessor of the suit land. The ex-parte decree was passed on 07.11.1991. Thereafter, G. Bhudevi filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in IA No.364 of 1995 for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the same was allowed and the suit was restored to file on 22.11.1995 and subsequently, the suit was dismissed. It is alleged that taking advantage of the ex-parte decree in his favour, 3rd respondent herein got his name mutated in the pahanies in the year 1991-92. 4. The petitioner herein claims that he purchased the land from G Bhudevi on 08.04.1987 for Rs.5000/- under un-registered sale deed, which was validated under Section 5-A of A.P. ROR Act by the Mandal Revenue Officer and a certificate under Section 13- B was issued on 22.03.1993. Based on the sale deed, the petitioner herein filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer admitted the claim of the petitioner and made enquiry and the name of the petitioner herein was entered in the ROR on 22.03.1993. The 3rd respondent filed appeal i.e. appeal No.D/6500/1996 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar and by order dated 09.05.2000, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled the pattedar pass book issued in favour of the petitioner herein and 3rd respondent and the matter was remanded to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar with a direction to take action as per the orders of the Court in IA No.364 of 1995 for cancellation of mutation and for implementation of the sale deed of the petitioner herein. Suppressing the same, the respondents 3 and 4 herein filed appeal before the Joint Collector, impleading G. Bhudevi and without impleading the petitioner herein, in spite of there being an order dated 09.05.2000 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of the same land, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to take action as per the orders of the Court and for implementation of the sale in favour of the petitioner herein. The Joint Collector by the impugned order allowed the said appeal, observing that as per the records and copy of the decree dated 07.11.1991 in OS No.1391/90, the respondents 3 and 4 herein were the owners and possessors of the said land of Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.766/C. The said decree dated 07.11.1991 referred to in the impugned order was an ex-parte decree. The learned Joint Collector failed to note and observe that it was not brought to his notice, that subsequently ex-parte decree in OS No.1391 of 1990 was set aside in IA No.364 of 1995 and the suit was restored to file and subsequently, the suit was also dismissed on 22.11.1995. The impugned order passed by the learned Joint Collector on the premise that the respondents 3 and 4 herein were held to be the owners and possessors of the land by virtue of decree in OS No.1391 of 1990 is factually incorrect, as the suit itself was subsequently dismissed. Further, the petitioner herein not having been made a party to the impugned proceedings in spite of the earlier order dated 09.05.2000 of the Revenue Divisional Officer in the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent herein is clearly unsustainable. The 3rd respondent herein having filed the said appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal No.D/6500/96 against the petitioner herein for the reasons best known to himself, did not implead the petitioner herein as a party to the impugned orders before the Joint Collector, though the petitioner herein is interested party. 5. Under those circumstances, it is considered a fit case where the matter needs to be remanded to the learned Joint Collector for fresh disposal according to law, after giving an opportunity to all persons interested in the said land, including the petitioner herein. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector for fresh disposal according to law. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.03.2011 bss