L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed under section 91 of the A. P. (T. A) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner submitted an application under Section 32 of the Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer, sadasivapet Mandal, Medak District, the 2nd respondent, claiming that his father late Baliga was the protected tenant in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 504, 505 and 506 of Sadasivapet Village and Mandal, admeasuring about 10 acres and the 1st respondent, who is the landlord, is unauthorisedly continuing the possession of the said land. He prayed for restoration of possession to him. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 8-8-1994, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy. The appeal was dismissed through orders dated 8-5-1995. Alleging that the proper forum of appeal is the Joint Collector, the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner presented another appeal before the 3rd respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent with an application to condone the delay. Through his orders dated 10-4-2003 the 3rd respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that once an individual is declared as a protected tenant under the Act in respect of a piece of land, such protected tenant or his legal representatives are entitled to be restored possession of such land, irrespective of the gap between the date of dispossession and date of submission of application. He contends that while the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, was not issued for such lands, the 3rd respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not the protected tenant at all. He contends that the final record of agricultural tenancies issued in Form No. V in respect of the lands in question conforms to part I; applicable protected tenancies and the minor discrepancies therein were inconsequential. He also contends that the plea of surrender of tenancy put forward by the 1st respondent does not accord with the procedure prescribed by law.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel contends that in the appeal presented to the Revenue divisional Officer improperly, an altogether a different view was taken and in that view of the matter, the orders under revision cannot be sustained in law. He submits that there is no valid surrender of tenancy and an improper surrender of tenancy is inoperative in law. Placing reliance upon Section 32 of the Act, the judgment of this Court rendered by a Full bench in Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor, 1987 (2) ALT 749 (FB), and the judgment of the bombay High Court in Keshav Ganesh badekar v. Gopinath Krishna Salunke, 2003 AIHC 1918, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to be restored the possession of the land.

( 6 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate- general appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the basic requirement for initiation of proceedings under Section 32 of the Act is the existence of an undisputed protected tenancy. He contends that the extracts of final record of tenancies in respect of the land in question clearly demonstrate that it was issued for nonprotected tenancies. It is also his case that whatever be the nature of the tenancy, the father of the petitioner had surrendered it, way back in the year 1963, and that it was recorded by the then Tahsildar in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. Learned Additional Advocate-General also contends that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ponnala Nursing Rao v. Nallolla Pantaiah, (1998) 9 SCC 183, a belated application under Section 32 of the act, cannot be maintained. He further contends that the 1st respondent had developed the land, incurred expenditure, and created 3rd party rights after 1963, and that an application unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document