( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The order of the learned single Judge reads as under. "the cause in this writ petition is covered by the decision in writ petition 5275/79 on August, 31, 1982. The Petitioner may avail of the remedies provided under Act 21 of 1950. This writ petition with the above observation is dismissed, xx xxx xx ". The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended : (I) ownership rights could not be conferred on protected-tenants who are not in possession of the land on the date of notification under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Telangana and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act ). (ii) the Amendment Act II of 1979 is prospective in operation and not retrospective, and (iii) the amended proviso to Sec. 38-E (2) of the Tenancy Act provides for a notice of eviction to the person in actual possession of the land for his eviction. When such a notice is issued, the person in possession has a right to defend his possession as against the holder of the ownership certificate. In support of his 1st contention that ownership certificate cannot ba granted to those protected-tenants, who were not in possession of the land, he placed reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chinnaboim narasaiah vs. Tahandildar, Mahabubabad, Warangal District1 Dealing with the explanation to Sec 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act, it was observed at Page 29 of the said decision as under :"thus, the vesting of ownership is subject to two conditions, viz. , that they must be in possession and that the conditions specified in sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Act must be fulfilled. "again at Page 31 it is held : "in the instant case, the Tahsildar passed an order for restoration of possession to the protected tenant after the ownership certificate had been issued. Such a procedure is not contemplated even by the explanation to Section 38 (1) of the Act. The fact that the provisions are beneficial would not enable a person to whom a certificate of ownership has been issued to seek restoration of possession under this act, for the simple reason that he happens to be no more a protected tenant, but an owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In this view of the matter, the Tahsildar, who admittedly restored possession on to the protected tenants subsequent to the issue of ownership certificate must be held to have acted without jurisdiction. The impugned notice issued by the patwari in pursuance of an alleged order of the Tahsildar to which the petitioners were not at all parties, has therefore to be quashed, as the possession of the lands was admittedly not restored to the protected tenants before the issue of the certificate and it cannot be held that they were holding the land. The deeming provision contained in the explanation would however lay down that such protected tenants would be deemed to be holding the lands on the date of the notification. But since procsedings fore restoration of possession have to be initiated thereafter before a certificate is issued, it can only be said that one of the conditions of the tenants being in possession before the issue of the certificate remains unfulfilled. For that reason, the certificate of ownership issued without putting the tenants in possession before its issue is equally invalid. " (Emphasis is ours ). Thus, the ruling in Chinnaboim Narasaiah s Case is an authority to the proposition that the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy act granted to the protected-tenants, who are not in possession of the land on the date of notification under Section 38-E is invalid. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel the protected tenants were not is possession of the land, for which the certificate issued, on the date of notification under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, he submitted that the very c