The petitioner and 12 others claiming to be the descendents of Baindla Balayya and Kadala Narsiga, filed separate applications under Section 32(1) and 40(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 2nd respondent herein. It was pleaded that Balayya and Narsiga referred to above, were protected tenants in respect of about Ac.10.00 of land in Survey Nos.177, 178, 199, 326, 327 and 328 of Anmagal Village, Hayatnagar Mandal and after the death of the protected tenants, they have succeeded to the rights, in the land. They prayed for grant of succession under Section 40 of the Act. It was also pleaded that respondents 4 to 7 herein have dispossessed from the land, and accordingly, they made an application under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of the possession.

The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 08.03.2001 holding that apart from the 13 applicants before him, 21 others are the successors of the protected tenants. Three years later, an order was passed on 15.03.2004 allowing the application filed under Section 32 of the Act and directing restoration of the possession of Acs.5.26 guntas in Survey Nos.326, 327 and 328, to them. It was mentioned that the tenancy in respect of the remaining land was surrendered.

The 3rd respondent, which is an association of the purchasers of plots carved out of the land in Survey Nos.326, 327 and 328 filed appeals before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein under Section 90 of the Act challenging the orders passed under Sections 32 and 40 by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent passed an order dated 15.11.2005 setting aside the orders under appeal. He remanded the matters to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The petitioner and 12 others filed C.R.P.No.6864 of 2005 before this Court under Section 91 of the Act. The revision was dismissed through order, dated 12.09.2007. The 3rd respondent was directed to dispose of the matter remanded to him, on merits after giving notice to the affected parties.

On remand, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 30.06.2008 allowing the applications filed under Sections 32 and 40 of the Act. Aggrieved by that common order, respondents 3 to 7 filed appeal under Section 90 of the Act before the 1st respondent. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 03.01.2011. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

The petitioner contends that the view taken by the 1st respondent in the impugned order is opposed to settled principles of law. He submits that once an individual is declared as protected tenant, his legal heirs are entitled to succeed to the rights and that if the protected tenants or his legal heirs are dispossessed from the land, the Tahsildar is under obligation to restore the possession under Section 32 of the Act. It is also pleaded that the observations of the 1st respondent on the question of limitation or delay are contrary to the law laid down by this Court.

Sri Tulasi Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and other legal heirs of the protected tenants, being illiterates, were not conversant with the procedure prescribed by law and the delay in filing the application was treated as fatal by the 1st respondent. He submits that the 2nd respondent, on both the occasions has examined the matter and granted reliefs under Sections 32 and 40 of the Act. Learned counsel submits that the benefit conferred upon an individual under a Law, which is part of agrarian reforms, cannot be denied on technical grounds.

Learned counsel further submits that a Division Bench of this Court, in Sada vs. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and another (AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 77) categorically held that the concept of delay or adverse possession are totally alien to the proceedings under the Act and that the 1st respondent was not justified in s