IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence of the subsistence of protected tenancy at the time of the original tenants' death and the timely filing of applications for succession to protected tenancy.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the Order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F2/3950/2009 dated 17.01.2011 by which the Joint Collector allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein under Section 90 of AP (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short Act, 1950”) which was preferred against the orders of Tahsildar, Yacharam Mandal dated 16.02.2009 in File No.A/5024/2006. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 91 of Act, 1950 questioning the above referred order of the Joint Collector, dated 17.11.2011.

2. Before adverting to the grounds on which this revision is preferred, it is just and necessary to give a brief note of the order of Tahsildar, Yacharam dated 16.02.2009, impugned Order dated 17.01.2011 and the circumstances which lead the petitioners to file the present revision.

3. As could be seen from the material documents filed along with the revision, it shows that the petitioners herein have filed an application before Tahsildar, Yacharam and claimed that petitioner Nos.1 to 6 herein, respondent No.8, Makkan Bikshapathi, Makkan Krishnaiah, Makkan, Maddi Salamma, Maddi Buggaraju were the legal representatives of Makkan Jangaiah and Maddi Jangaiah were the original protected tenants of agricultural lands bearing No.Sy.Nos.50 and 51 admeasuring Ac.14-20 guntas and Ac.19.39 guntas respectively, locally known as Chandramma Chelka, Kurmidda Village of Yacharam Mandal and said Jangaiah died leaving the petitioners Nos.1 to 4 herein, David Raju, respondent No.8, Bishapathi, Krishnaiah and the said Maddi Jangaiah died leaving the petitioner Nos.5,6, Salammma, Bugga Raju as their legal heirs and since the above said Makkan Jangiah and Maddi Jangaiah died they are entitled to obtain succession certificate.

4. They have also sought for restoration of possession over the above said lands. The record shows that before they filed the above referred original suit, the successors of Maddi Jangaiaha have filed O.S.No.305 of 2006, and successors of Makkan Jangaiah have filed O.S.No.306 of 2006 before Junior Civil Judge, Imrahimpatnam for grant of succession certificate. Both the suits were decreed in their favour.

5. The Tahsildar having considered the representation made by the above said petitioners and after perusing the entire record and decrees referred above, came to the conclusion that the petitioners referred above are legal heirs of original protected tenants by name Maddi Jangaiah and Makkan Jangaiah as such they are entitled to succession of PT rights over the lands to an extent of Ac.14.20 guntas in Sy.No.50 and Ac.19.39 guntas in Sy.No.51 of Kurmidda Village. Accordingly, passed the proceedings on 16.02.2009.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 7 of the present revision petition have filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Act 1950 against the above referred order of Tahsildar, Yacharam in File No.F2/3950/2009. Both the parties have appeared before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and submitted their respective contentions. After hearing both parties, the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District passed order dated 17.01.2011 which is impugned in the present revision petition by observing that the petitioners herein are not entitled to succession of protected tenancy rights and set aside the order of Tahsildar, Yacharam dated 16.02.2009.

7. As could be seen from the impugned Order, the District Collector, based on the entries in Khasra pahani (1954-55) found that the land in Sy.No.50 to an extent of Ac.14.20 guntas and Sy.No.51 to an extent of Ac.19.39 guntas which is classified as patta land was shown in favour of Bakaram Narsi Reddy, Mohd. Ghouse Goiuddin, Abdul Qayyum and found Makkam Janga and Maddi Janga were shown as protected tenants of the said two extents. The Joint Collector has also found that even though the appellants before him have claimed that there was surrender of protected tenancy, the same ca