PADALA PENTAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and 12 others claiming to be the descendents of Baindla Balayya and Kadala Narsiga, filed separate applications under Section 32(1) and 40(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 2nd respondent herein. It was pleaded that Balayya and Narsiga referred to above, were protected tenants in respect of about Ac.10.00 of land in Survey Nos.177, 178, 199, 326, 327 and 328 of Anmagal Village, Hayatnagar Mandal and after the death of the protected tenants, they have succeeded to the rights, in the land. They prayed for grant of succession under Section 40 of the Act. It was also pleaded that respondents 4 to 7 herein have dispossessed from the land, and accordingly, they made an application under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of the possession.

(2.) The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 08.03.2001 holding that apart from the 13 applicants before him, 21 others are the successors of the protected tenants. Three years later, an order was passed on 15.03.2004 allowing the application filed under Section 32 of the Act and directing restoration of the possession of Acs.5.26 guntas in Survey Nos.326, 327 and 328, to them. It was mentioned that the tenancy in respect of the remaining land was surrendered.

(3.) The 3rd respondent, which is an association of the purchasers of plots carved out of the land in Survey Nos.326, 327 and 328 filed appeals before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein under Section 90 of the Act challenging the orders passed under Sections 32 and 40 by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent passed an order dated 15.11.2005 setting aside the orders under appeal. He remanded the matters to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The petitioner and 12 others filed C.R.P.No.6864 of 2005 before this Court under Section 91 of the Act. The revision was dismissed through order, dated 12.09.2007. The 3rd respondent was directed to dispose of the matter remanded to him, on merits after giving notice to the affected parties.