THIMMA REDDY Vs. GOLLA KASHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector of Mahabubnagar in Case No.B7/ IA-1/1994 had preferred the present revision under Section 9 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as 'Act' in short).

(2.) The revision petitioners Thimmareddy and Narayan Reddy and another Venkat Reddy, who is no more, are the sons of late Sai Reddy. The said heirs of Sai Reddy were granted the ownership certificate dated 23.8.1975 under Section 38-E of the Act by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal in respect of their lands in S.No.l17 of an extent of 17 acres 31 guntas and the respondents herein, who have been in possession of the said property, aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal under Section 90 of the Act. After a long lapse of time it was allowed and the 38-E Certificate was cancelled and the said Thimma Reddy and Narayan Reddy, the heirs of Sai Reddy, aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Collector of Mahabubnagar, had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(3.) Venket Reddy, one of the heirs of Sai Reddy, it is reported now that he died on 2.11.1998, even when the appeal was pending, and subsequent thereto the appeal was disposed of. The respondents herein had filed the appeal before the Joint Collector stating that one Nagi Reddy was the paltedar and owner of the land bearing S.No. 117 for an extent of 17 acres 31 guntas in Chinamandadi village of Pedamandadi Mandal and after the death of the said Nagi Reddy, succession had been granted in the names of his two sons, namely, Yella Reddy and Dharma Reddy and one Sai Reddy was the protected tenant of the said land and the said protected tenant had orally and with consent has voluntarily surrendered the protected tenancy rights in the year 1952 in favour of the land holders, who were minors, and handed over the possession of the said lands. Subsequently, the land holders have sold 6 acres of land in S.No.l 17 to 1st respondent herein and one Narayana through a registered sale deed dated 7.10.1971 and since then the 1st respondent and the heirs of Narayana i.e., the respondents 2 and 3, since the said Narayana expired, have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property even to the knowledge of the revision petitioners.