KOTHARASALA RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. EKBAL BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in both the revisions, are the protected tenants. They purchased the property from the land-holder and filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, for issuance of a certificate under Section 38-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Respondents filed their objections claiming to be the owners of the property and the land-holders. But the objections were overruled and sale certificates were granted. Against that order appeals have been filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority remanded the matters by holding that the Respondents are the land-holders and a further enquiry has to be made in the matter. Against this order of remand, these revisions have been filed.

(2.) Sri Y.Bhaskara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the fact that the Petitioners are protected tenants has not been disputed. When the name of the land-holder Smt. Ekbal Begum continues to be in the records, the respondents have no locus standi to object to the grant of the certificates. If there is any enquiry to be made it should be made between the Petitioners and the land-holder Ekbal Begum, but not at the instance of the respondents. Therefore the order of remand made by the lower Court is clearly in excess of its jurisdiction, warranting interference of this Court.

(3.) Sri Chandrasekhara Reddy, Counsel appearing for the respondents contended on the other hand that against an order of remand, a revision does not lie; that no evidence was adduced with regard to merits of the case and when the appellate Court remanded the matter, all the questions can be gone into before the original authority after remand.