D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS reference came up for consideration before us upon an order of reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

( 3 ) THIS is a case where the third respondent was given certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity the Act ). Unfortunately, in the order of reference passed by the learned single Judge an inadvertent mistake had crept in, stating that it was the petitioner who was granted the certificate under section 38-E of the Act. The Act also was described as Act of 1956, which also obviously, a typographical mistake. It was further stated in the said order that it was the petitioner who was not in actual and physical possession of the disputed property and that it was he who filed the petition before the tahsildar and that certain orders have been violated.

( 4 ) BUT, the fact is otherwise; and the defect in the order can simply be cured by inserting expression respondent No. 3 in place of the petitioner.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, the facts, shorn of, are that respondent No. 3 was originally atenant to an extent of Ac. 25. 00 of land in S. No. 179 of madharam Village of Singareni Mandal and a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act was issued by notification in 1976, which fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the third respondent actually was not in possession as on the date of the issuance of the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the original landlord alienated the property in favour of a non tribal who, in turn, was the vendor of the present petitioner. The said transaction by the original landlord was allegedly made subsequent to the issuance of the certificate under Section 38-E according to the third respondent, and somewhere in 1962 according to the petitioner. It is a pure question of fact, which this court cannot answer at this stage.

( 7 ) DURING the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge had relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Narsaiah v. Tahsildar, Mahabubabac, wherein and whereby it was held as under:"thus, the provision of Section 27 of the limitation Act with regard to the extinguishments of the right of tenancy are held applicable to a tenant, who is out of possession for the statutory period and the right of such a tenant to bring a suit would be barred. If the right of such a tenant is extinguished and he cannot lay a civil suit, for recovery of possession, he cannot be held entitled to restoration of possession, even in a proceeding under the Tenancy Act for the obvious reason that if for one purpose his right is held extinguished for the other it cannot be held to survive. It, therefore, follows that once the right of the tenant is extinguished, in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, he cannot be restored to possession either on his application or otherwise by the authorities under the Tenancy Act. "

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the said judgment of the division Bench was overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor

( 9 ) THE learned single Judge, notwith standing the fact of the earlier judgment in Narasaiah v. Tahsildar, mahabubabad (1 supra) being overruled by the subsequent Full Bench judgment of this court in Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor, expressed a doubt that the latter judgment did not deal with the aspect of limitation, which is the crucial question involved, whereas, the earlier judgment Narsaiah v. Tahsildar, Mahabubabad (1 supra) had dealt with the question of limitation. Therefore, the learned single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench.

( 10 ) IN other words and for convenience, the aspect that is to be examined, had been expressed by the learned single Judge in the following terms:"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document