THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3156 of 2006 Date: 28.1.2010 Between: Dr.Thummala Indira Devi. ……….. Petitioner/respondent No.1 And Musunuru Satyanarayana and others. ……. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3156 of 2006 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.5.2006 passed in I.A.No.111 of 2006 in A.T.C No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, without issuing any notice to the proposed parties, straight away passed the order under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the petition. The 1st respondent herein claiming to be the tenant sought a declaration that he is the tenant of the petition schedule land and also injunction restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the main petition. It appears that the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur passed status- quo order in I.A.No.1004 of 2003 and it was extended from time to time and the same was in force till 14.2.2006. The specific case of the 1st respondent is that he has got pre- emption right to purchase the schedule land under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act (for short ‘the Act’) and any alienation of the schedule land by the petitioner herein is null and void and that the petitioner herein in violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and status-quo order, alienated the petition schedule property to the respondents 2 & 3. Then the 1st respondent filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to implead respondents 2 & 3 as respondents to his petition and the Special Officer allowed the same by impugned order. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? Admittedly, the 1st respondent specifically averred that he got pre-emption right to purchase the suit land under Section 15 of the Act and the alienations made by the petitioner herein are null and void. Now it is also not in dispute that status-quo order was in force and in spite of the same, the petitioner herein alienated the property to the respondents 2 & 3 herein. Admittedly, the Special Officer having considered the relevant provisions, passed the orders. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent ought to have filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and the learned Special Judge ought to have issued notices to respondents 2 & 3 before allowing the petition. It has to be seen that the Special Officer has been dealing with the dispute between landlord, tenant and purchasers from landlord under the provisions of A.P (A.A) Tenancy Act 1956 and the Rules made thereunder. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me any provision under the Act or in the Rules, which compel the Court to follow Order 1, Rule 10 CPC while dealing with the disputes under the Act. Section 11 of the Act envisages that in the event of the change in the ownership of any land, the cultivating tenant shall be entitled to continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions as before. Admittedly, the Special Officer was dealing under the special enactment and Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred. The Special Officer has to follow summary procedure and decide whether alienations made by the petitioner are hit by sub-section 6 of Section 15 of the Act or not. Therefore, I am of the view that there are no grounds to allow the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:28.1.2011. mrb