( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the original inamdar in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 373 admeasuring Ac. 5. 17 guntas situated at kondurg village of Kondurg Mandal. The respondent herein is the legal heir of the deceased protected tenant who filed a declaration under Section 7 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, the Act ) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Act in respect of the above said land. Notices have been issued to all the interested parties and in response to the said notices, the petitioners filed their objections on the claim of the respondent-declarant and also filed their own declaration for grant of occupancy Right Certificate in their favour in respect of the land in dispute. The Revenue Divisional Officer posted the matter for hearing. The case was heard on 5-8-1989 and 2-9-1989. The Petitioners as well as the respondent appeared before him and the case was posted for hearing to 7-10-1989, reposted to 26-10-1989 and 11-11-1989. It is noticed by the Revenue Divisional Officer that neither the petitioners nor their Counsel have appeared on those subsequent three days. Thereafter, the case was reserved for orders by the revenue Divisional Officer after examining the material evidence available on record. Meanwhile, the petitioners have filed a petition to re-open the case and the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the same holding that there was no reason to do so. Subsequently, by Order dated 8-6-1990, the Revenue divisional Officer directed for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the respondent herein under Section 7 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners carried the matter in appealbefore the Joint Collector, mahabubnagar, in Case No. B2/34/90. The Joint Collector, after hearing both sides, confirmed the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, by Order dated 14-2-1992. Hence, the present revision.

( 2 ) IT is the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the primary authority i. e. , Revenue Divisional Officer, erroneously rejected their petition to re-open the case without giving any opportunity of hearing to them and that the Collector also failed to take note of this aspect. It is further contended that the respondent was in possession of the land as on 20-7-1955 whereas they (Petitioners) are in actual possession of the land in question as on 1-11-1973, which is the crucial date for determination of the rights of the parties for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Act, and that both the Tribunals below have discarded the above factum and erroneously granted the Certificate in favour of the respondent. In support of their contention that the relevant date for grant of Occupancy Rights certificate is 1-11-1973 and not 20-7-1955, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in Ramendar Reddy vs. District collector, Hyderabad District and N. Sudershan Reddy vs. Kannamma.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent i. e. , the legal heir of the protected tenant that Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act specifically barred issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the inamdar if the land in respect of which the inamdar lays claim, is in occupation of a protected tenant. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the original inamdar are not at all entitled for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates and that the Revenue Divisional Officer has, therefore, rightly passed orders granting the Certificate in favour of the respondent being the legal heir of the original protected tenant. It is lastly contended with utmost vehemance that this revision against the order passed under Section 24 (1) of the Act, is not maintainable as the same is expressly prohibited under the provisio