G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the appellants in File No. F2/ 3651/2002 against the order dated 15-/-2003 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('the Act' for brevity).
2. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Joint Collector. The revision petitioners are the petitioners before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) of Medchal Mandal. According to the petitioners, one Khaita Chandraiah was a permanent tenant over the lands in question. They are the Legal Representatives (L.Rs) of Chandraiah. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), East Division granted patta certificates under Section 38E of the Act vide File No. H/12100/82 dated 22-1-1982. On filing the appeal against granting of the said patta, the Joint Collector through the order dated 26-4-1989 set aside the order of the RDO and referred the matter for de novo enquiry. The RDO., Medchal took up fresh enquiry and passed fresh order vide L/1490/92 dated 15-/-1992 dismissing the claims of all holders under Section 38E. Aggrieved by the order of the RDO they preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector in Case No. B4/5636/92 and it was allowed by the Joint Collector on 28-12-1996 confirming the ownership rights of the appellants under Section 38E of the Act. The owners of the land filed CRP No. 1163 of 1997 questioning the order of the Joint Collector and it was dismissed by the High Court on 19-4-1997 confirming the order. Subsequently, in 1998 the appellants being Section 38E holders filed an application under Section 38 of the Act before the MRO., Medchal for restoration of possession of the land to an extent of Ac.12-28 guntas in S.No.830 and Ac.12-12 guntas in S.No. 852 situated in Medchal and to restrain the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 from altering the structure of the land or making any constructions on it. The MRO after hearing both parties dismissed the application as devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners through their General Power of Attorney Holder filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No. F2/3651/2002. The Joint Collector dismissed the appeal giving liberty to the revision petitioners to seek redressal in a Civil Court. The revision petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector preferred this revision.
3. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners are entitled for recovery of possession of the disputed land from the landlords and transferees of landlords?
Point :
4. It is an undisputed fact that the RDO, Medchal granted a certificate under Section 38E of the Act to the petitioners' father on 22-1-1982 regarding the land in question as protected tenants. Respondents 1 to 5 are landlords. Respondents 6 to 8 are the transferees and Respondents 9 and 10 are the GPA holders of the revision petitioners. The RDO passed an order recognizing the revision petitioners as the protected tenants of the land in question. When the landlords questioned the order of the RDO before the Joint Collector by preferring an appeal, the same was allowed on 26-4-1989 by remanding the matter to the RDO, after setting aside the earlier order for a de novo enquiry. When the said appeal was dismissed by the Joint Collector, a batch of CRPs. were filed by the landlords before this Court and they were dismissed through a reported judgment of this Court in Raj Kishan Pershad and Anr. v. Joint Collector, R.R. District, : 2001(3)ALD469 .
5. The revision petitioners filed the application under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of possession of the land situated in S.Nos.830 and 852 of Medchal Village. The MRO observed that one Khaita Chandraiah was the permanent tenant of those lands. He was granted Section 38-E certificate on 22-1-1982. The revision petitioners are the L.Rs of Khaita Chandraiah. They executed a registered GPA after expiry of eight (8) years from the date of granting Section 38-E certificate. The GPA holders executed sale-deeds in favour of third parties by virtue of the authorization given to them under the GPA and those sale-deeds are in force. The names of the purchasers were also incorporated in the possession column of the pahanis. The revision petitioners have not filed any documents questioning the validity of the sale transactions. By virtue of the sale-deeds, the third parties acquired ownership over those lands. The subsequent cancellation of GPA of Respondents 9 to 10 will have no effect on the sales already affected. The MRO ultimately dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the MRO, dated 19-2-2002 the revision-petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. The revision petitioners contended before the Appellate Tribunal that the GPA in favour of Respondents 9 to 10 is a forged one and that the sale-deeds executed by GPA holder are illegal. The GPA executed in favour of Respondents 9 and 10 was revoked on 1-2-1999. It was further contended before the appellate Tribunal that in view of the doctrine of merger, the order of the appellate Tribunal merged with the order of the High Court, which was given in the year 2001, therefore, the alienation by the GPA - permanent tenant in favour of third parties is illegal. The appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration the material available on record and the pleas taken by the revision petitioners dismissed the appeal.
7. The revision petitioners are agitating the same questions before this Court requesting to set aside the order of the Joint Collector.
8. It is an admitted fact that the ownership rights under Section 38E of the Act in favour of the revision petitioners became final. It is lawful for the MRO to restore possession of the lands to the certificate holders who are not in possession of the lands, after giving notice of eviction to the occupants thereof in the manner prescribed under Section 38-E of the amended Act No. 2 of 1979. The order of the MRO discloses that the revision petitioners sold the lands through the GPA to third parties. The revision petitioners executed GPA on 5-11-1994 in favour of Respondents 9 and 10. In the said GPA the revision petitioners mentioned that they are the absolute owners and peaceful possessors of agricultural land covered by Survey Nos. 830 and 852. The GPA holders executed sale-deeds on various dates. The revision petitioners while contending that the GPA is a forged one executed another GPA in favour of one M. Narsing Rao. They executed a cancellation deed on 18-1-1999 mentioning that they are the sole absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land and that they executed the GPA in favour of Respondent 9 and 10. They got the said cancellation deed validated through the District Registrar on 1-2-1999, In the GPA executed in favour of M. Narsing Rao on 27-2-1998 they mentioned that they are in possession of the lands by doing cultivation and they are continuing in possession and enjoyment of those lands. In all the documents the revision petitioners mentioned that they are in possession of the lands. When the revision petitioners resorted to sell away the lands at their volition, they cannot blame others. The concerned authorities will help the protected tenants for restoration of the land if it is in possession of the landlords or in possession of the persons authorized by the landlords. In the case of on hand, the protected tenants themselves have alienated the property through GPA holders and they are now seeking restoration of possession from their vendees by invoking the provisions of the Act. The question whether the GPA executed in favour of the Respondents 9 and 10 is a valid one, whether the sale-deeds executed by Respondents 9 and 10 are binding on them, whether they are entitled to recover the possession of land from the purchasers are all the issues to be resolved between the revision petitioners and third parties who are claiming title over the properties through the revision petitioners. The appellate Tribunal therefore rightly concluded that if there is any grievance to the revision petitioners they can get the same redressed through a Civil Court.
9. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners in support of his contentions relied on the following judgments of this Court:
10. In Potta Nagabhushanam v. RDO, Kothagudem, : 2000(6)ALD749 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the scope of Sections 32, 38E and 98 of the Act held that a tenant who obtained a protection certificate but lost possession of the land can seek its restoration under Section 32 of the Act, but not under Section 38 of the Act.
11. The facts of the case covered by the above decision are different from the facts of the case on hand, therefore, the principle laid down in the above decision has no application to the case on hand.
12. In A. Janardhan Reddy v. Man Singh, 1988 (1) ALT 860, a learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the scope of Section 89 of the Act and Section 150 of the A.P. Land Revenue Act held that disposing of the case by the authorities without going into the allegations in the petition and without considering the documentary and oral evidence amounts to violation of the procedure prescribed under law and such practice is deprecated.
13. In Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor, 1987 (2) ALT 749 (FB), a Full Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Sections 32, 38-E and proviso to Section 38-E of the Act held that the protected tenant need not be in physical possession on the date of notification under Section 38-E(1) for becoming owner of the property and obtaining ownership certificate. Restoration of possession to protected tenant is not condition precedent for grant of certificate under Section 38-E(2). Issuance of certificate if final is conclusive proof of ownership, validity thereof cannot be challenged by landholder or other interested persons again during the delivery proceedings. Mere surrender of land by protected tenants, which is not valid, does not entitle them to right to possession and grant of ownership certificate. It was further held that the landholder cannot plead adverse possession against protected tenants.
14. The principles laid down in the above decisions have no direct bearing on the facts of the case on hand. In the light of the facts and circumstances indicated above, I do not find any merits in the revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.