( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the appellants in File No. F2/ 3651/2002 against the order dated 15-7-2003 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 15-7-1992 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 another v. Joint Collector, R. R. District, 2001 (3) ALD 469.

( 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 eigh