The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide him protection for his agricultural operations in an extent of Ac.4.29 gts, in Sy.No.281; Ac.1.16 gts in Sy.No.282 and Ac.1.26 gts, in Sy.No.285 of Kuntloor village, RR District (the schedule land).

2. The petitioner is about 61 years old and he is pursuing relentless efforts and to obtain the fruits of his lawful entitlements to unhindered possession and enjoyment of agricultural land and a peaceful environment for his lawful occupation of agriculture in his land for nearly 40 years.

The chronology of facts:-

A - The litigation :-

(i) The petitioners father Yelamati Ramana @ Ramaiah was a protected tenant in respect of the schedule land, who was in possession of the land till his death on 10-1-1960. On 2-8-1967 the petitioner filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Hayatnagar Taluk, Rangareddy District (the Tahsildar) for a succession certificate.

(ii) The Tahsildar, by the order bearing reference No. B1/4317/67, dated 21-5-1969 declared the petitioner to be the successor to the deceased protected tenant, his father, Yelamati Ramana. Aggrieved (by the order of the Tahsildar dated 21-5-1969), the respondent No.5 herein, preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector, Hyderabad. The appellate authority set aside the order of the Tahsildar dt. 21-5-1969 and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by the Tahsildar to consider the issue whether the deceased protected tenant (Y. Ramana) was in lawful possession of the schedule land at the time of his death. On remand, the Tahsildar considered the application of the petitioner de novo, heard the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent, recorded their testimony, considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and by the order dated 8-12-80 certified succession of the protected tenancy to the petitioner as valid and declared the petitioner to be the lawful successor to the protected tenancy, in respect of the schedule land. The Tahsildar declared the possession of the 5th respondent to have been unlawfully obtained.

(iii) The petitioner thereafter filed an application No. B1/9785/1 dated 26-12-1980 before the Tahsildar for restoration of his possession to schedule land, u/Sec. 32(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act). Notices were issued to the respondents 5 to 8 who also filed a counter dated 10-9-1981. The petitioner claimed in his application that he was forcibly dispossessed after the death of his father in 1960 and could not agitate for restoration of his possession as he was a minor. On attainment of majority, he sought a succession certificate which was granted to him by the Tahsildar on 8-12-1980. The respondents claimed to have continued in possession of the schedule land since 1957 and to have purchased the same in 1961 from the pattadar Devender Raju Naidu. By the order dated 31-3-1982, the Tahsildar held, on the basis of the perusal of the relevant records that the protected tenant Y. Ramana expired and soon thereafter the petitioner, his son, was forcibly dispossessed as he was a minor and in view of the petitioners status as the successor to the protected tenancy having been established by the order of the Tahsildar dated 8-12-1980, the petitioner was entitled for possession u/Sec.32. The Tahsildar directed the petitioner to be put in possession of the schedule lands.

(iv) Aggrieved, the respondents 5 to 8 preferred an appeal u/Sec.90 of the Act to the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. By the order bearing reference No. B4/813682, dated 15-11-1982, the appeal was dismissed. The appellate authority held that the order (of the Tahsildar) dated 8-12-1980 granting succession to the petitioner (of the right to protected tenancy) had become final, as no appeal was preferred there from; the appellants failed to establish that the protected tenant had surrendered his rights voluntarily that any sale or lease granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 w