THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 901 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed an application under Sections 32 and 40 of the A.P. (Telagana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, 2nd respondent herein with a request to restore possession of the land in Survey Nos.158 and 159 of Jalpally Village. They pleaded that their grand father, by name K.Nagoji, was a protected tenant and was also issued ownership certificate under Section 38-A of the Act and that they were dispossessed from the land. The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 04.06.2007, directing restoration of possession of land to the petitioners. The 3rd respondent is a private limited company. It is stated to have purchased that land from pattadars. Necessary mutations were made in its favour in the revenue records. On coming to know that the 2nd respondent passed the order, dated 04.06.2007, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein, under Section 90 of the Act. The 1st respondent allowed the appeal, through order, dated 27.12.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the 1st respondent suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, since he proceeded on the assumption that no protected tenant was recognized in respect of the land or that certificate under Section 38-E of the Act was issued. He also submits that the certified copies of the revenue records clearly disclose that the grand father of the petitioners was not only recognized as a protected tenant but also was issued ownership certificate. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the 1st respondent has verified the entire record and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the verification of record clearly discloses that no one was recognized as a protected tenant in respect of the land and the name of the petitioners’ grand father did not find place in the register of the protected tenants vis-à- vis the land. He further submits that the copies filed by the petitioners are not genuine. Section 32 of the Act empowers the Tahsildar to restore possession of the lands covered by the protected tenancy. Limitation does not apply for such application. The request for restoration can be made either by the protected tenant himself or by his legal representatives. Section 40 of the Act deals with the grant of succession of the protected tenancy rights. In the instant case, the petitioners pleaded before the 2nd respondent that their grand father was recognized as the protected tenant, apart from being conferred ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Act. The adjudication into the claims of this nature naturally needs issuance of notice to the affected parties. It is not as if the 1st respondent could not have ascertained the persons, who are in enjoyment of the land. The petitioners themselves did not disclose as to who dispossessed them. Verification of the revenue records would certainly disclose as to the persons, who are in possession of the land. However, the 2nd respondent has chosen to issue general notice without addressing it to anyone. This naturally would not evoke any response. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent was ex parte or unilateral in nature. The 1st respondent allowed the appeal by going into the merits of the matter. He proceeded on the assumption that no certificates under Section 38-E were issued in respect of the land and that the grand father of the petitioners was not recognized as protected tenant. Certain certified copies are filed before this Court in support of the contention that the register of protected tenants contains the name of the grand father of the petitioners and that he was also issued certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. This controversy could have been effectively dealt with, had the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioners. Verification of this nature cannot be undertaken for the first time at the appellate stage. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal and he shall issue notice in the proceedings to the 3rd respondent. It shall be open to the parties to put forward all their contentions. The 2nd respondent shall endeavour to dispose of the proceedings, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 28.01.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 901 of 2009 Date: 28.01.2009 JSU