BHUSHANAM J Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order passed by the Joint Collector, Khammam in Case No. C4 (M)2/90. The Revision Petitioner filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sattupalli, for restoration of his possession in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 732, 733 to 738, 832 to 835, situated at Baithupalli Village of Khammam District under Section 32(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer considered the same on merits and held that the father of the petitioner and after him the petitioner himself are the protected tenants. They were to be in possession of the lands in question. Subsequently, it seems that the petitioner was displaced from the land and he filed a petition for restoration of possession. Such a remedy is not available to him. According to the Mandal Revenue Officer, once Section 38-E Certificate is issued, the protected tenant becomes the owner. Subsequently possession does not entitle the owner seeking remedy under the Tenancy Act. He has to go to the Civil Court.

(2.) This finding of Mandal Revenue Officer was accepted by the Joint Collector. He held that the ownership was transferred during 1955-56 to the Appellant. Thereafter the Appellant was in continuous possession for several years. Therefore, the benefit of the Amended Act of 1979 does not apply to the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Appellant/Petitioner is a protected tenant. He was in possession of the land and subsequenlty he was dispossessed by the village elders and the respondent herein was given the possession in lieu of his archakatvam services to the temple. According to him the subsequent dispossession also comes under the purview of Section 32 and Section 38-E(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.