MOHD HASHAM DIED Vs. DONTARAMONI NARSIMHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Hussain and Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Hyder, the Counsel representing both the parties.

(2.) The revision is filed under Section 91 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, in short referred to as "Act" hereinafter. The facts in brief are that the ancestor of the petitioners late Mohammed Chand was the absolute owner of the lands in Sy.No.343 an extent of Acs.7-29 guntas, Sy.No.344 an extent of Acs. 13-25 guntas and Sy.No.367 an extent of Acs. 11-28 guntas of Nomula village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The lands in Sy.Nos.343 and 344 being evacuee property, had been allowed to Dr. K.C. Solani and late Mohammed Chand purchased the same from the said person and late Mohammed Chand also purchased the land in Sy.No.367 from Ghulam Hussain and thus late Mohammed Chand had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said lands and subsequent to his death his sons, daughters and widow had inherited the said lands.

(3.) The respondents filed a petition under Section 32(1) of the Act for restoration of possession of the aforesaid lands on the ground that his father D. Narayana and Mohammed Chand were protected tenants and after the death of the said D. Narayana, the respondents came into possession and the legal heirs of Mohammed Chand had dispossessed the respondents in the month of July, 1984. However the petitioners had disputed the plea of protected tenancy raised by the respondent and had denied the possession especially from 1952 when the father of the respondent had orally surrendered tenancy rights and further inasmuch as these lands originally are evacuee properties, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain or decide the petition under the Act. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchal, by an order dated 27-3-1993 in Case No.Al/1904/89 dismissed the petition filed by the respondent and the respondent aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal in file No.F2/436/94 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District who had allowed the same by an order dated 21-8-2000 and the revision petitioners aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present revision.