This review civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the revision petitioners praying to review the order, dated 21.2.2007 passed by this Court in CRP No.1442 of 2004.

2. Two orders were passed by the MandaI Revenue Officer, Mancherial on 6.10.1990 and' on 15.11.1988 cancelling the certificate of ownership issued under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') in :avour of Gaddam purgai!}h, the father of the revision petitioners, after issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioners by alleging that the land was sold - away by the petitioners to many persons; that the protected tenant should not do any acts of destruction of property, subdivision or sub-letting or failure to cultivate the land personally or assignment of interest or using of the land for any purpose other than agriculture. Therefore, the protected tenancy certificate is liable to be - cancelled. The MandaI Revenue Officer made a spot inspection and observed that in Survey No.93 so many residential houses have been built and no cultivation was being taken up for more than 20 years and the land covered by Survey No.92 has been used as playground of the high school. Being aggrieved by the order of the MandaI Revenue Officer, appeal has been preferred before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Mandai Revenue Officer. Being aggrieved by the same, the review petitioners preferred the revision petition and this Court passed an order on 21.2.2007 dismissing the civil revision petition by confim1ing the order passed by the Joint Collector.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of this COUli dated 21.2.2007, the petitioners filed the present review petition requesting to review the said order by contending that the protected tenant, who lost the possession, has always a right to seek recovery of possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act; that the protected tenancy certificate was issued much before 1.1.1973 the date on which the certificate was granted to late Gaddam Durgaiah; that any sale by the protected tenant before he is granted with ownership rights is null and void, therefore, the benefit shall be given to the tenant; that merely because the land has been converted into non-agricultural land, it will not take away the right of protected tenant over the land and as the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act is a conclusive proof of title, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by reviewing the order passed by this Court in the revision petition.

4. In the civil revision petition, this Court observed that the first petitioner was declared as a protected tenant with effect from 1.1.1973 and earlier to that he was only a tenant. The record discloses that late Gaddam Durgaiah was in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.6.22 guntas in Survey No.92 and Nelli Ramulu was in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas as per the entries made in Kasara Pahani for the year 1954-55. Gaddam Durgaiah sold away an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas of land to Nelli Ramulu, through the sale deed dated 20.1.1954 while he was the tenant of the land. By the date of the said sale, late Gaddam Durgaiah did not acquire ownership over the land. It further discloses that late Gaddam Durgaiah sold away the land' for non-agricultural purpose and the houses were constructed in the said land, RTC bus depot was also established and the High School was using a part of the land as playground. It was further observed that though he was in possession of the land as on the relevant date, he voluntarily sold away the land violating the conditions mentioned in Section 19 of the Act. The revenue authorities without proper verification issued the protected tenancy certificate in favour of the first petitioner on account of the fraud played by him contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property withou