COMMON ORDER:

Since the parties and the lis involved in both the revision petitions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. CRP.Nos.836 and 887 of 2020 are preferred praying this Court to set aside the common order dated 13.11.2019 passed in Appeal Nos.F1/02/2015 and F1/11097/2018 by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, directing the concerned Tahsildar to restore the possession of land to an extent of their share in Sy.No.217 to and extent of Ac.18.00 gts, Sy.No.218 to an extent of Ac.10.38 gts, Sy.No.219 to an extent of Ac.11.34 gts, Sy.No.257 to an extent of Ac.14.39 gts, Sy.No.144 to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts, situated at Choudoor Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, on the ground of being legal heirs of Late V. Yadhaih.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Radhabai was the original owner of various lands, including Sy.Nos.217, 218, 219, 257, and 144, totaling 57.31 acres. Vale Basappa was the permanent tenant over the land, and Shaik Mohinuddin was the agent collecting kaul on behalf of Radhabai. After the death of Vale Basappa, his two sons, Vale Yadaiah and Vale Sangaiah, were issued ownership certificates under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act in 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) as evidenced by File No.A10/3129/1977. However, it was alleged that the tenants were forcibly evicted from the land and were compelled to leave for Maharashtra to earn a living. Subsequently, Vale Sangaiah filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 32 of Act for restoration of the property, claiming that he was the sole heir after the death of Vale Yadaiah. The Tahsildar passed orders in the year 2010, observing that the PT rights were still existing, and the ownership certificates were issued to Vale Yadaiah and Vale Sangaiah. Despite this, it was submitted that the petitioners did not approach the authority for restoration of possession, and instead, the land was sold to over 20 people through registered documents from the year 1991 onwards. The revenue records were also updated to reflect the said transactions. The matter was remanded for fresh inquiry, and appeals were filed by Vale Sangaiah and the legal representatives of Vale Yadaiah. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed vide common order dated 13.11.2019 on the ground that the petitioners had become owners of the land, making restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Act becomes inapplicable.

4. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel for respondents, in both the matters.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the common order under revision passed by the Joint Collector is replete with errors and infirmities, and that the same is against the facts of the case, as it fails to take into account the evidence on record. He contended that the Court of Joint Collector erred in not considering the provisions of Sections 38-E and 32(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950 (for short ‘Rules 1950’), and averred that the said provisions are crucial in determining the rights of the petitioners, who claim to be the heirs of Late V. Yadhaih. He asserted that the petitioners are entitled to restoration of possession, as they have been dispossessed without following due process, and by ignoring the provisions of Section 38-E(2), which empowers the Tahsildar to restore possession to the protected tenant after issuing a certificate. He lamented that the bar of jurisdiction under the Act, which prohibits civil Courts from settling or deciding questions under the Act was not considered. He divulged that the lands in question are protected tenancy lands, which cannot be alienated to third parties without offering them to the protected tenants.

6. Therefore, while advocating that there is no limitation period for seeking restoration of possession under the Act, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petitions