G VENU GOPAL REDDY Vs. P ANANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Section 91 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 aggrieved by the order dated 13-3-2000 passed in Appeal No.Fl/IA-14/99 by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar dismissing an application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 21-6-1997 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar in File No.B7/IA-103/76, B7/17/90 and further to declare that the land in S.No.45 of Nandigam village to an extent of Acs.5.00 is not covered by any protected tenancy as held by the civil Court.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows :

(3.) The revision petitioner, a third party to the prior proceedings, had purchased the land in Sy.No.45 of Nandigam village measuring Acs.5.00 from the original pattedar by a registered document bearing No. 1540/90 dated 2-11-1990 and thus he claims to be the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of the said sale deed. The original owners filed suit OS No.8 of 1973 on the file of District Munsif, Kondangal for recovery of possession of the said land and respondents 1 to 5 herein had contended that they are protected tenants of the land in Sy.No.45 and hence the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute. The Court of first instance had decreed the suit by holding that the land in Sy.No.45 is not covered by any protected tenancy and hence the original owner Subhadra Bai and others are entitled to a decree as prayed for and the aforesaid respondents aggrieved by the same had filed AS.No.6 of 1975 on the file of District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, and the said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 6-8-1979 by holding that the protected tenancy certificate is a forged one and the land in Sy.No.45 is not covered by the protected tenancy and hence the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not ousted and as against the said judgment, the respondents referred to supra also had preferred second appeal SA No.701 of 1979 on the file of this Hon'ble Court which was also dismissed and subsequent thereto after perusing all the revenue records and also the judgment of the civil Court the petitioner had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 in the aforesaid survey number by a registered sale deed dated 2-11-1990 and had got mutation of his name also in revenue records as pattedar and possessor and the respondents stated supra, having been unsuccessful in all the proceedings before the hierarchy of civil Courts, again had initiated the proceedings for grant of 38-E Certificate under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act". Their claim is that they have rights of protected tenancy in the said land and initially the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet refused to grant 38-E Certificate and however inasmuch as the original owners had sold away the property to the petitioner they did not represent the case before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar though the revision petitioner had purchased this property even in the year 1990 and has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the property to the knowledge of one and all, the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without perusing the judgments made by the hierarchy of the competent civil Courts had allowed the claim of the respondents specified supra by granting 38-E Certificate and consequently they had initiated proceedings seeking eviction of the petitioner and after coming to know about the said order dated 1-6-1997 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, immediately the petitioner filed an application to review the order dated 1-6-1997 mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not served with any notice and further the findings in the said order are contrary to the findings of the civil Court and the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar by an order dated 13-3-2000 had dismissed the said application on two grounds - one is on the ground of locus standi and another is on the point of limitation, and the revision petitioner aggrieved by the same had preferred the present civil revision petition.