CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE three writ petitions, which were referred by one of us (Chinnappa Reddy,j) for the decision of a Division Bench on account of the conflict between the views expressed by Kondaiah,j. , in VEERA swami V. SUB COLLECTOR (1)1974 (2) aplj 397and Madhava Reddy, j. , in srinivasa RAO V. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (2) 1974 (2) APLI 27, raise common questions and may be disposed of by one judgment. It is enough if we refer to the facts of the case in WP 4166/75. The 2nd respondent in WP. No. 4166/75 filed a petition purporting to be under Sec 16 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act before the tenancy Tahsildar, Tanuku to declare him as the tenant of 83 cents of land in R. S. No. 38/3 of Penumantra village and to restrain the landlord (Petitioner in the writ petition) from taking forcible possession of the land by illegal means. He also sought an interim injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his possession. The application was opposed by the present petitioner who leaded that the land was under his personal cultivation. It was also pleaded that the Tenancy Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the 2nd respondent for a declara

Click Here to Read the rest of this document