P. A. CHOWDARY, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition falls the question of the scope and amplitude of section 32 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act. 1950 (herein after referred to as the act ). The petitioners claim to have purchased the agricultural lands bearing S. Nos. 24, 28, 29, 32, 144, 145, 146, to 150, 152. 153 to 157, 159 to 168 measuring in all 54 acres 27 guntas situate at Gollur village, Maheswaram Taluk, rangareddy District through three registered sale-deeds dated 19-8-1983, 29-8-1983 and 11-9-1983 from the original owners. The petitioners when they sought to possess and enjoy those properties had encountered opposition from the present Respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 who all claim to be the tenants with respect to the same lands. The petitioners-purchasers of these lands had therefore tiled O. S. No. 353/83 on the file of the Court of the district Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam and obtained interim injunction against the respondents-tenants from interfering with their peaceful possession. But the respondents-tenants applied to the Tahsildar, Maheswaram Taluk, Rangareddy district under Section 32 of the Act and obtained interim order on the same day directing the petitioners-purchasers not to disturb the possession of the respondents-tenants till the case is disposed of. In their application to the Tahsildar the respondents-tenants stated that they are the. legal heirs of the protected tenant Sri Laxmaiah, that they were cultivating these lands from the time of their fore-fathers and that the purchasers are interfering with their possession unauthorisedly. Their main prayer was that the tahsildar should declare and protect their peaceful possession of those lands and meanwhile call fur a report from the Patwari and pass interim order restraining the petitioners-purchasers from inrerfering with their possession till the main case is disposed of. The Tahsildar made an interim order in favour of tenants. Against that order of the Tahsildar dated 23-12-1983 the petitioners-purchasers had filed an appeal before the Joint-Collector under section 90 of the Act which was dismissed on 10-2-1984 for the reason that under Section 90 of the Act he has no jurisdiction to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tahsildar. The present writ petition has therefore been filed by the petitioners-purchasers to restrain the Tahsildar from proceeding further with the matter and for grant of appropriate reliefs. What the petitioners are asking is for a writ of prohibition to forbid the tahsildar to entertain the application made by the tenants. Their entire case rests on an assertion that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to make the interim order which he did on 23-12-1983. restraining the purchasers from interfering with the possession of the tenants. The basic question is whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction under Section 32 (1) of the Act to pass the interim order. If he has jurisdiction to pass interim order it is admitted that no appeal lies from such an interim order u/s 90 of the Act to the collector. It is not denied that Section 90 of the Act comprehends only filing of appeals against the final orders.

( 2 ) IT is also admitted that if the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to entertain the tenants complaint and pass the interim order Pro tanto the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit for injunction filed by the petitioners-purchasers would be ousted u/s 99 of the Act. Section 99 of the Act says that"no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector of by the board of Revenue or Government and that no order of the Tahsildar, tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court".

( 3 ) THE main question therefore is whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document