( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Teiangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Act ). The subject-matter relates to an application under Section 32 of the Act, for restoration of possession filed by one of the successors of protected tenant.

( 2 ) THE deceased 1st petitioner, A. Narasimha, filed an application under Section 32 of the Act, initially, before the Mandal revenue Officer, Patancheruvu, the 10th respondent, for restoration of possession of an extent of Ac. 1. 35 gts. , of land in Sy. No. 701 (old Sy. No. 916), of Ameenpur village. On an objection raised by respondents 6 and 7, who were impleaded therein, the proceedings were directed to be dealt with by the Revenue divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, the 9th respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings before the 9th respondent, the original petitioner died and the 2nd petitioner was brought on record as his legal representative.

( 3 ) IT was alleged that the land in Sy. No. 701, admeasuring about 7 acres was owned by one Ali-bin-Saleh, and that Veera Mallaiah, the father of the petitioner, was the protected tenant. He pleaded that respondents 6 and 7 herein are cultivating the lands, on the basis of certain documents, and that the alleged transfer is not binding upon him. He urged that, being one of the four sons of late Veera mallaiah, he is entitled to be restored the possession of Ac. 1. 35 gts. of land.

( 4 ) THE application was resisted mainly by respondents 6 and 7. They pleaded that veera Mallaiah was the protected tenant, and he had four sons by name, Narayana, ramaiah, Shambhaiah, and Narasimha (petitioner ). According to them, Veera mallaiah, purchased the landfrom the original owner in the name of his 2nd son, Ramaiah, through an ordinary sale deed, dated 25-3-1952, the sale was regularized under section 50-B of the Act in 1972 and thereafter, they purchased the land through a registered sale deed, 2-5-1972. It was alleged that the petitioner figured as an attesting witness in the sale deed, dated 2-5-1972, and ever since the sale, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. They pleaded that the petitioner came forward with an application, on finding that the value of the land had increased, and that the application deserves to be rejected.

( 5 ) THE 9th respondent allowed the application of the petitioner and directed restoration of possession. Aggrieved there by, respondents 6 and 7 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, the 8th respondent, under section 90 of the Act. The appeal was allowed through order dated 10-12-2004. Hence, this revision.

( 6 ) SRI K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Act is a social and beneficial legislation and the status of protected tenancy accorded under it, cannot be ignored or defeated. He submits that the tenancy is inheritable, and except by following the procedure prescribed under section 19 of the Act, for surrender, and section 38-A, by purchase, by the tenant himself ; there is no other way that the tenancy can be terminated. He contends that section 38-D, imposes a clear bar on alienation of a land, covered by a protected tenancy. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 50-B, do not have any effect on the rights of the protected tenant, and that the so called sale, in favour of the brother of the petitioner, in the year 1952, and the one in favour of respondents 6 and 7, in the year 1972; are non-existent and not binding on the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to the orders passed by the 9th respondent, possession was delivered to the petitioner and that the same cannot be justified at this stage.

( 7 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7, on the other hand, submits that the land in question was purchased by the protected tenant, himself, in the name of one of his sons, way back in the year 1952. He contends t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document