1. A factual narrative going back to over seven decades; competing claims and proceedings under two legislative regimes; incoherent and often mutually contradictory assertions and responses presented before statutory, quasi-judicial and judicial authorities; rights predicated upon ambiguous records, often alluded to and less often brought on record; reliefs sought without fidelity to jurisdictional limitations and/or settled juridical norms of repose like res-judicata and irrevocably concluded proceedings; orders by statutory, quasi-judicial and judicial authorities without reference to all applicable legal norms and binding precedents on areas of jurisdiction and effect of irreversibly concluded proceedings; suppression of relevant facts including those that go to the root of jurisdiction; a blitzkrieg of random and occasionally vagrant litigation; competing assertions as to locus-standi deficit; and an order of remit by the apex Court with a specific direction to consider enumerated and other issues that may be raised, comprise the bouquet (or the strange alchemy if you will) of facts and circumstances that constitute the substratum of these Revisions. We now proceed to unravel the cobwebs, as best we are able to. But, now to judgment.

CRP No.6708 of 2003 was filed under S.91 of the A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, “the Tenancy Act”) challenging the order dated 9.12.2003 in File No.F2/4902/2001 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under S.90 of the said Act. The Joint Collector had set aside the order dated 28-4-2001 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in Case No.G/3640/96 dated 28.4.2001 granting sale certificate under S. 38-A of the said Act in respect of Ac.17.20 guntas in Sy.No.51, Ac.15.36 guntas in Sy.No.52 and Ac.4.01 guntas in Sy.No.53 (Paiki) of Gachibowli Village in favour of 19 persons who claim to be Protected Tenants under the said Act represented by their GPA – P. Venugopal Reddy.

2. CRP SR No.24532 of 2012 is filed under S. 91 of the Tenancy Act on 5.9.2012 by legal representatives of Gadda Shanker and one Gadda Krishna (allegedly protected tenants), challenging the order dated 9.12.2003 in Case No.F2/4903/2002 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under S. 90 of the said Act . The Joint Collector had set aside the order dated 28-4-2001 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in Case No.G/3640/96 dated 28.4.2001 mentioned above. The petitioners herein also filed CRP MP No.5812 of 2012 to grant leave to file the CRP against the said order; CRP MP No.5813 of 2012 to dispense with the filing of the copy of the said order; and CRP MP SR No. of 2012 under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 3100 days in filing the above CRP.

3. CRP SR No.24636 of 2012 was filed under S. 91 of the Tenancy Act on 6.9.2012 by one Mohd. Ghouse (an alleged protected tenant) against the order dated 9.12.2003 in Case No.F2/4903/2002 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under S. 90 of the said Act mentioned in para 2 above. The petitioner – Ghouse filed CRP MP No.6283 of 2012 to dispense with the filing of the copy of the said order; and CRP MP No.6538 of 2012 under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 3079 days in filing the CRP.

4. CRP No.1200 of 2003 was filed under S.21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, “the Ceiling Act”), by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order dated 2.9.2002 in LRA No.16/2001 of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District confirming the order dated 28-4-2001 of the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division. By this order, M/s. Kastopa Corporation (declarant under the Ceiling Act) (for short, ‘Kastopa’) was declared a non-surplus holder and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serlingampalli Mandal, directed to restore possession of Ac.11.28 guntas in Sy.No.46, Ac.