( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge upholding the remand made by the Collector of Medak at sangareddy for enquiry to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, medak relating to the validity of the claims of the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the appellants of both the appeals to the disputed lands. The facts relating to the cases are rather complex having undergone series of litigations including coming to this Court twice or thrice, for which it is necessary, for clear appreciation, to adumbrate those. Admittedly, the appellants in W. A. No. 847/93 and the respondents in that appeal, who are the respondents 3 to 7 in W,a,no. l028/93, are claiming the land through one Surabhi Narasa Goud. The appellants in W. A. No. 1028/93 is claiming the lands through the original inamdar of the land. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in W. A. No. 847/93 are referred in this judgment as appellants and the respondents 4 to 8 in that appeal are referred as respondents. The appellant in W. A. No. 1028/93 is referred as the Inamdars.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that Surabhi Narasa Goud got a declaration in his favour as a protected tenant under Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangaha area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950), referred to hereinafter as the Tenancy Act) in the year 1957 (as appears from the order of the Collector in Case No. B. 2/28/85 dt. 13-2-1989) in respect of Survey Nos. 678 to 685 and 690 to 699 in Gummadidala village of Narsapur Taluq (presently jinnaram Mandal) except S. No. 679. It is however the case of the Inamdars that sy. No. 691 and 695 were surrendered by the tenants and therefore they are entitled to resume the land and paid compensation therefor, Narsa Goud executed an agreement of sale on 22-1 -1965 for consideration of Rs. 21,500-00 for sale of Ac. 167-91 cents in Sy. Nos. 678 to 685 and 690 to 695 to one Sri Bapaiah choudary, who died on 1-10-1967. He was survived only by his daughter smt. Surapaneni Sudheshana, wife of one Rama Rao. She executed an agreement on 1-1-1968 conceding the shares of the respondents in the lands as those persons had contributed money for purchasing the lands. Applications were made by the appellants under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act for being declared owners of the lands in which they succeeded on 23-3-1975 by orders passed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal), the competent authority. In the proceedings one Sambasiva Rao, whose heirs are respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and one Prasada Rao, respondent No. 4 had intervened claiming grant of patta in their favour on the basis of purchase purported to have been made under an agreement of sale from Bapaiah choudary. The respondents, having been unsuccessful before the Tribunal, preferred appeal to the appellate authority the District Revenue Officer, Medak who dismissed the appeal on 27-7-1976. In the appeal the respondents set up the case of Narsa Goud to have been the Kabiz-e-Kadim in respect of the lands. The dismissal of the appeal was assailed in this Court in C. R. P. No. 2179/76. While the parties were proceeding under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the mam was itself vested with effect from 20-7-1955 under A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Act VIII of 1955), referred hereinafter as the Inams abolition Act. The appellants again applied for registration as occupants under that Act. That proceeding was confested by the respondents basing their claim on the agreement of sale dated 22-1-1965 executed by Narsa Goud in favour of bapaiah Choudary. While the proceedingwas pending, C. R. P. No. 2179/76 was disposed of by this Court on 18-11-1977 observing that grant of patta under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act would be subject to the orders passed under the inams Abolition Act. The orders were passed under the Inams abolition Act by the competent authority i. e. , the second r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document