1(a). The revision petitioner in CRP.No.191 of 2014 by name Kontham Anji Reddy since died is represented by his LR-son Kontham Narsi Reddy, maintained under Section 91 of AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short the Act) impugning the order of dismissal passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, in case No.F2/3952/2010 dated 26.12.2013, confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar, Maheswaram in file No.B/625/2009 dated 08.02.2010. The respondents to the revision are one N. Laxmaiah S/o Venkulu since died represented by LRs i.e., N. Srinivas Goud, N. Srihari Goud and N. Sri Raghu Goud, three sons of said Laxmaiah and N. Eswaraiah S/o Venkulu (brother of above Laxmaiah).

1(b). CRP.No.293 of 2014 is filed under Section 91 of the Act by K. Pratap Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, K. Prabhakar Reddy S/o Gopal Reddy, K. Chandra Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, K. Raghuma Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, K. Krishna Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, K. Sudhakar Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, K. Venkat Reddy S/o Kantu Lakshma Reddy, against the order of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District in case No.F2/945/2010 dated 26.12.2013 allowing the same in grant of the relief beyond what was granted by the Tahsildar in file No.B/625/2009 dated 08.02.2010 supra. The respondents to the revision are selfsame revision respondents in CRP.No.191 of 2014 supra besides one N. Laxmamma W/o. Laxmaiah.

2(a). The contentions in the grounds of revision in CRP.No.191 of 2014 in nutshell are that N. Laxmaiah and N. Eswaraiah, sons of Venkulu filed application for grant of succession of tenancy rights of their father Venkulu S/o Yellaiah under Section 40 of the Act, in respect of lands in survey Nos.42, 55 to 66 of Sreenagar Village, Maheshwaram Mandal before the Tahsildar claiming that Venkulu was the protected tenant of said lands and he died on 23.09.1980 and they are entitled to succession of the protected tenancy rights being his two sons. On receipt of the notice from Tahsildar, K. Anji Reddy and his son Narsi Reddy filed counter opposing the same saying Venkulu was never the protected tenant of said lands and Section 40 of the Act does not contemplate any right of succession to them. The Tahsildar recognized said N. Laxmaiah and Eswaraiah as protected tenants by granting them succession of protected tenant rights of their father N. Venkulu in respect of said lands in survey Nos.42, 57, 62, 63, 64, by order dated 08.02.2010 in file No.B/625/2009. Aggrieved by it, the revision petitioners herein filed case No.F2/3952/2010 before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, challenging the order of the Tahsildar, but the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal which made them to file this revision.

2(b). The contentions in the grounds of revision therefrom are that the impugned orders are contrary to law, weight of evidence, the Tribunal ought to have seen that Section 40 of the Act does not give any power or jurisdiction to the Tahsildar to issue succession of tenancy to legal heirs, but for to recognize the legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant, provided the original tenant was holding the land at the time of his death and beyond that cannot declare succession and the only enquiry contemplated in such case is under Section 32, 38 & 38-E of the Act by the concerned authority. Independent proceedings under Section 40 of the Act for succession thereby cannot be initiated and even same was the plea that was not considered before the Tribunals. The Tribunals below ought to have seen that as per Section 40 of the Act unless and until protected tenant was holding the land at the time of his death, his legal heirs cannot inherit tenancy rights and in the case on hand, the so called protected tenant Venkulu was not holding the land at the time of his death and his sons cannot be declared as successors of tenancy rights. Further once the original tenancy register is not available in the office for verification, the Tribunals erred in holding that late Venkulu was the pro