ORDER:

TRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This application is filed to review the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by this Court in CRP No.256 of 2018.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned Counsel for review petitioners and Sri V. Ravindar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7, Sri Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkateswar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.12.

3. The learned Counsel for the review petitioners has submitted that the Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record while passing orders in the revision petition and that the error strikes at the root of the case. That the revisional Court failed to call for the records from the Joint Collector while deciding the revision petition, it was the duty of the revisional Court to call for the records and examine them before passing any orders in revision, which was not done. He further argued that if at all the records were perused, the Court could have concluded that the tenancy rights of Chatla Rama Lingam and Yemireddy Narayana Reddy were terminated and ownership certificates were issued with regard to the extents of land held by both of them. He further argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record while passing the orders in revision. He submitted that Section 19 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act, 1950”) pertains to termination of tenancy by the land holder but this Court has held that when the tenant wants to surrender his land to the landlord the procedure under Section 19 of the Act has to be followed which is contrary to law. He further argued that this Court failed to go through the entries in the final tenancy register (original PT Register) and has made an observation contrary to the record. He further argued that the entire material pertaining to the ownership rights of both the parties was before the original authority but the revisional Court failed to call for the same and appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. He further argued that the revisional Court failed to appreciate the fact that since Yamireddy Narayana Reddy has surrendered his land to the land holder with an intention to purchase the same, the ownership certificate is issued to the wife of Narayana Reddy but the revisional Court has held it otherwise.

4. The Counsel for review petitioner has further submitted that though it was held at Para No.18 of the orders of the revisional Court that the notice was served by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the persons who were on record, the Final Notice dated 23.08.2014 is filed at Page No.252 of the review petition, this shows that the notice was served only to A. Laxma Reddy, A. Ashok Reddy, Narayana Reddy, Yennam Anji Reddy and P. Rama Krishna Rao and that it is not served on the persons whose names appeared in the revenue records. Notice ought to have been served to the persons whose names appeared in the revenue records by the RDO which was not done, thus, the Joint Collector has held that the notices were not properly served on all the parties and the same was set aside by the revisional Court holding that the notices were served.

5. A perusal of the final notice dated 23.08.2014 itself reveals that the notices are not served on the parties whose names appeared in the revenue records. He therefore, prayed this Court to allow the review application by holding that all these errors are apparent on record.

6. Sri Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkateswar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.12 has submitted that even his client i.e., respondent No.12 herein was also not served any notice and that the RDO has not considered any record while granting ownership certificate in favour of the children of Narayana Reddy, when already one ownership certificate was issued in fa