This order shall dispose of both the writ petitions as they are interrelated, and the petitioners and respondents are the same. The first writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 08.02.1999 passed by respondent No.5, namely, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (hereafter referred to as, JC) under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereafter called, Tenancy Act). Second one is filed against the order of the JC, dated 27.03.1999, passed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereafter called, ROR Act). The land in dispute is the same, and the lis is between the tenants and their alienee on one hand and the landlord and the derivative titleholders on the other hand. By the time these matters came to be filed in the Court or in any event they are heard by this Court, the original landlords and original tenants are not in picture. The dispute is between subsequent purchasers. Nevertheless, the issues raised and argued are in relation to the rights of the tenants under the Tenancy Act. The controversy in relation to the ROR Act is, therefore, consequential, which may not and should not detain the Court when once the core issues under the Tenancy Act are decided.

2. The land admeasuring Acs.7.32 guntas in survey No.116/A & B of Kothwalguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as, petition schedule land), originally belonged to Mohit Hussain (1) (In some places it is shown as Syed Ahmed Aheson or Ahmed Ahsan). One Yadagiri Pullaiah was a protected tenant. It appears, landholder sold the land in 1966 to one Gopal Reddy and his family. Under a registered partition deed dated 18.03.1971 between Gopal Reddy and his brother Narayana Reddy the petition schedule land fell to the share of the latter who sold the same to Penta Reddy in 1982. Under five registered sale deeds dated 05.09.1991, 07.09.1991 and 14.10.1991. Penta Reddy sold the land to the four petitioners herein. After the purchase, the petitioners successfully filed an application on 04.01.1992 before the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation and necessary changes in the ROR record.

3. One year thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed an application on 07.03.1993 before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act for restoration of possession. They contended that their grandfather Yadagiri Pullaiah was tenant of Mohit Hussain, that thereafter Ramaiah father of respondent Nos.1 to 3, applied for ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, and that on 15.05.1975 the Mandal Revenue Officer granted certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. After conducting enquiry, by proceedings dated 05.01.1994 the Mandal Revenue Offier directed restoration of possession to a respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. They then filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 04.01.1992 granting mutation is to the petitioners. The petitioners herein filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act before the JC against the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer granting an order for restoration of possession. In the meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal of respondent Nos.1 to 4 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, aggrieved by which the petitioners filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the JC. The appeal under the Tenancy Act and a revision under the ROR Act filed by the petitioners were simultaneously - in all probability - heard by the JC who passed two separate orders. Against the order dated 08.02.1999 passed under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act W.P.No.5632 of 1999 is filed. The revision under Section 9 of ROR Act was dismissed on 27.03.1999 against which W.P.No.1 of 1999 is filed.

4. One Sri V. Narasimha Reddy filed two separate applications in both the writ pet