C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS Second Appeal and Civil Revision petition are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the self-same property and the parties are common.

( 2 ) ). The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 19-6-1995 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners questioning the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella dated 14-9-1988 by which the R. D. O. issued a revised ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in favour of the respondents in respect of the subject land. It may be mentioned that though the said certificate comprises several survey numbers, the dispute in the present proceedings relates to only an extent of 30 guntas out of a total extent of Ac. 9-28 guntas in Survey Number 357 of Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

( 3 ) THE Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the petitioners in the C. R. P. against the respondents for a permanent injunction in respect of the said extent of 30 guntas of land. The trial Court decreed the suit. But on appeal it was reversed holding that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land as on the date of suit and they are also not entitled for injunction in view of the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the said Act granted in favour of the defendants. Hence the Second Appeal.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in this judgment.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land is an inam land and that they and their predecessors in interest have been in occupation of the same for the last more than 50 years, that they are entitled for occupancy rights in the said land by virtue of the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and that proceedings in that behalf are still pending before the competent authority. As the defendants obtained the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the tenancy Act behind their back, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector who erroneously- dismissed the said appeal. Hence they filed C. R. P. No. 2763/95 questioning the said order of the Joint Collector. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that there is an irrigation well fitted with electric motor and pump set in the suit land, that it is also enclosed by a compound wall and fencing on either side and that the plaintiffs have been using the said well for irrigation of their adjoining lands in Survey numbers 355 and 405 since a long time.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that they are protected tenants in respect of the total extent of Ac. 9-28 guntas in Survey No. 357 including the suit land, that originally a ownership certificate u/s. 38-E was granted on 31-5-1975 in favour of their predecessors viz. , kothakapu Sai Reddy and others, sons of narasaiah, that in the subsequent family partition, the said extent of Ac. 9-28 guntas fell to their share and therefore, they filed an application before the Revenue divisional Officer for issuing revised ownership certificate in their favour according to their shares and the R. D. O. who is the competent authority, after due enquiry granted the revised ownership certificate dated 14-9-1988 in their favour which is marked as Ex. A-16. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who after local inspection of the suit land, filed his report.

( 7 ) TO prove their case, the plaintiffs besides examining the first plaintiff as p. W. I mainly relied upon the pahani for the years 1955-58 marked as Ex. A-2 and the pahani for the year 1989-90 marked as ex. A-10 wherein their names are recorded as the cultivators of the suit land. As against the said evidence on the side of the plaintiffs, the defendants relied upon the oral evidence of the 1st defendant who was examined as D. W. I an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document