( 1 ) IN all these civil revision petitions filed under Section 91 of A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Tenancy Act, for brevity), the petitioners and the respondents are same. By common order, dated 30-4-2005 in case No. F2/5767/ 2004 and case No. F2/6916/2004, the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District allowed the appeals filed by respondents and remanded the matters to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Ranga Reddy (East Division) for ate novo enquiry. By the said order, the Joint collector set aside the orders passed by rdo, dated 31-05-2004. Aggrieved by this order, C. R. P. No. 2755 and 2774 of 2005 are filed. By yet another common order, dated 30-04-2005, the Joint Collector allowed appeals in case No. F2/5768/2004 and in case no. F2/6917/2004, while setting aside the panchanama, dated 30-01-2003, and remanded the matter to Mandal Revenue officer (MRO), Saroor Nagar for passing appropriate orders. This common order is subject matter of C. R. P. Nos. 2775 and 2776 of 2005.

( 2 ) THE brief fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The land admeasuring Acs. 32-02 guntas comprised in survey Nos. 367 to 369 of nadargul village of Saroor Nagar Mandal in ranga Reddy district originally belonged to one Shaik Alladdin. The said landholder leased out land to one Kata Michael, who was enjoying it as protected tenant. After death of landholder, his two sons Jamaluddin and Imamuddin succeeded to the property, likewise after death of protected tenant Kata Michael, his son sowraiah, who is the father of the petitioners herein succeeded as a tenant. The two legal heirs of landholder sold the land to one smt. Vidya Mashalkar under registered sale deed, dated 02-12-1965. In turn, Smt. Vidya mashalkar sold the land on 30-03-1994 in favour of one Chippa Babaiah, who is the predecessor of the respondents.

( 3 ) SOWRAIAH applied to MRO under sections 32 and 40 of the Tenancy Act seeking recognition as legal heir of the protected tenant and also for restoration of possession to him. The application was dismissed. On appeal, under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, the Joint Collector by order, dated 15-11-1997 confirmed the orders of the original authority under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. A revision petition being C. R. P. No. 582 of 1998 was filed before this Court. By order, dated 16-09-1999, this Court remanded the matter to the Joint Collector for fresh consideration with a direction to dispose of the appeal keeping in view the observations made by this court in C. R. P. No. 582 of 1998. Thereafter, further considering the matter by order dated 23-12-2000, the Joint Collector allowed the appeal directing restoration of possession to the petitioners who are the legal heirs of original protected tenant. This order shall again was subject matter in C. R. P. No. 354 of 2001. By Judgment in Chippa Raghuramulu v. Kota Showraiah, the revision petition filed by the respondents herein was dismissed. The special Leave Petition (Civil) filed with delay was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25-11-2004.

( 4 ) TENANCY Act by Section 38 (1), gives, at his option, preemptory right to the protected tenant to purchase the landholders interest. The procedure as contemplated in various sub-sections of Section 38 of Tenancy Act involves making an offer to the landholder, making an application to Tenancy Tribunal or revenue Divisional Officer- in case of refusal by landholder to sell; depositing the amount determined as reasonable price of the landholders interest and passing of an order by the Tenancy Tribunal, from which date the protected tenant shall have absolute right in the land. The petitioners made an application before Special Grade Deputy Collector and revenue Divisional Officer (Tenancy Tribunal), ranga Reddy District under Section 38 (1) of the Tenancy Act. In the said application, the deceased landholder Shaik Alladdin and his two sons Jamaluddin and Irnamuddin were shown as respondents. As the notice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document