Finding that petitioners are protected tenants in proceedings under Section 32 was unnecessary for granting relief to them.

1. Since the issues raised in these Revisions are common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The respective 1st respondents in each of these Revisions are the landholders corresponding to the petitioners in each of these Revisions.

3. The petitioners in these three Revisions claim to be protected tenants in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.249, 256, 257 and 258 of Fathepuram Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District.

4. The brief history leading to the filing of these Revisions is as under:

(i) In the year 1990, the petitioners along with others filed applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda in case No.B/7202/1990 for grant of certificates under Section 38-E of the Act and also sought summary eviction of the respective 1st respondents under section 98 of the Act. They contended that they are in possession of certain parcels of land in the above survey numbers as tenants; as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act’), they were entitled to claim protected tenancy rights ; that they lost possession over the properties before the notified date; and that they had filed an application before the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer for restoration of possession, but he did not take any action.

(ii) By order dated 31.03.1992, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda dismissed their petitions.

(iii) Challenging the same, they filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda in case No.C3/JC/TA/22/92.

(iv) The said appeal was dismissed on 30.09.1994 holding that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda was not competent to pass orders for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Act and that the A.R.D.O. (L.R.) is the authority for issuing certificate under Section 38-E of the Act.

(v) This was challenged in CRP.No.1637 of 1995 by the petitioners.

(vi) The said CRP was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.1996 holding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissing the application filed by petitioners for grant of certificates under Section 38-E as well as for restoration of their possession over the subject lands. This Court also held that application under Section 98 of the Act for summary eviction of the landlords was rightly rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector, since there is a specific provision for issuance of certificates under Section 38-E as well as for restoration of possession of the tenant who lost his possession under the Act (i.e., Section 32). This Court observed that it is open for the petitioners to file applications before the concerned authorities as per prescribed procedure for obtaining certificates under Section 38-E for which there is no time limit prescribed under the Act and also for recovery of possession. This Court directed that when such applications are filed, the authorities concerned would take up enquiry and pass orders within six months.

(vii) In view of the observations made by this Court in CRP.No.1637 of 1995, the petitioners filed applications under Section 32 of the Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nereducharla. They were numbered as case No.F/188/95. Six sets of tenants including the petitioners/their predecessors-in-title were applicants there. The respective 1st respondents in the Revisions were also parties.

(viii) By order dt.12.03.1998, the Mandal Revenue Officer allowed the said applications and declared that the petitioners are protected tenants, that their tenancy is subsisting and they are entitled to be put back in possession under Section 32 of the Act. In the said order it is also observed that the original Protected Tenancy (P.T) Register and other material papers like extract of provisional list under Section 38-E published by the A.R.D.O. (L.R.) and Pahani Patrikas were verified; that the verification of the P.T. Register showed that the petitioner