LAXMINARAYANA DIED Vs. S CHAKALI BUCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition (CRP), the petitioner challenges the validity of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the RDO'), in File No. K/4545/88 dated 21-7-1989 as well as the order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar district, in Case No.B7/29/1989 dated 9-8-1999, wherein the order of the RDO dated 21-7-1989 is confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy.Nos. 123/2, 140, 141, 199, 200 and 201 of Kammadanam village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar district. The respondents are the recorded protected tenants in respect of the said lands under the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondents approached the RDO for grant of Ownership Certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The RDO through his letter dated 21-7-1999 granted the same. The petitioner challenged the order of the RDO by way of appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed through order dated 9-8-1999. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initiated the proceedings under Sections 19 and 32 of the Act for termination of the Tenancy. He submits that the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, after conducting an enquiry and after issuing notices to the respondents passed an order dated 13-7-1976, terminating the tenancy of the respondents in respect of the subject lands and against that order the respondents preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector and the same is pending. Once the tenancy is terminated, the question of granting Ownership Certificate under Section 30 of the Act does not arise. He further submits that when the respondents approached the RDO on an earlier occasion for grant of Ownership Certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, the application was returned on the ground that the same cannot be entertained in view of termination of the tenancy and it was observed that they can renew the request only if the order dated 13-7-1976 passed by the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, terminating the tenancy, is set aside in appeal. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the RDO and the Joint Collector which are under challenge cannot be sustained.