COMMON JUDGMENT:

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by different parties against different respondents. But however, the dispute is with regard to same property and litigation was between the same parties based on the earlier litigation and various orders which will be referred in the following order. To avoid confusion and for better appreciation, a common order would suffice for disposal of all the three Revision Petitions.

2. CRP No.4511 of 2010 has been filed under Section

91 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (herein after will be referred as ‘Act, 1950’), by the Legal Representatives of Pathuri Maniamma namely Pathuri Mahesh Kumar Goud, Pathuri Pramilamma and Pathuri Sukanya challenging the order in case No.F2/6299/2009 on the file of Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy, where under, RDO, Ranga Reddy, order in case No.L/141/ 2008 has been confirmed.

3. CRP No.5672 of 2010 is also filed against the order of Joint Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.F2/6299/2009 confirming the order of RDO in Case No.L/141/2008. This revision has been filed by the legal representatives of Uppari Narasimha and Uppari Seetharamulu and some other third parties under Section 91 of the Act of 1950.

4. CRP No.295 of 2013 has been filed under Section

91 of Act, 1950, by Atluri Siva Ram Prasad and five others being legal representatives of one Atluri Sitaramaiah assailing the order of Joint Collector in Case No.F2/2712/2010, where under, the order of RDO in case No.H/4239/1980 was confirmed.

5. As already stated, though different revision petitions have been filed by different parties, the litigation revolves around the lands in survey Nos.89, 91, 92 and 93 with corresponding new survey Nos.324, 325, 326, 327 and 328 to an extent of Ac.77-00 gts of land in Mangalpally Village.

6. As could be seen from the averments made by the petitioners in the above referred revision petitions as well as the contentions raised by the respective respondents, there is no dispute about the ownership of land by one Dademiaya over the above referred properties. CRP.Nos.4511 of 2010 and 5672 of 2010 were filed by or on behalf of the legal representatives, protected tenants of some of the extents in the above referred survey numbers, where as, CRP.No.295 of 2013 has been filed by the legal representatives of A.Sitaramaiah, who said to have purchased some of the extents from the above referred survey numbers from the original pattedar. Since it is proposed to decide all the Civil Revision Petitions under the common order, the parties will be referred to as Legal Representatives of protected tenants and Legal Representatives of alleged purchasers of the landed property.

7. As per the averments made in CRP No. 4511 of

2010, the revision petitioners have claimed that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and RDO, East Division, Ranga Reddy, who are arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 in the said Civil Revision Petition failed to see that there were no proceedings of Tahsildar in terms of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, 1950 and no order either pleaded or filed before them, thereby, they could not have passed the proceedings vide case No.F2/6299/2009 and case No.L/141/2008. The petitioners have claimed that the respondents No.1 and 2 committed an illegality by simply relying on photocopies of alleged affidavits of the protected tenants, in fact, no such affidavits were filed before the Tahsildar. The originals of the said affidavits or the certified copies were not available and in spite of those documents being not admissible in view of Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act, R.D.O. passed an incorrect order which was confirmed by the Joint Collector.

8. The said petitioners have claimed that the protected tenancy in respect of lands in the above referred survey numbers was among 15 protected tenants, and in view of Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act, 1950, unless there is a valid surrender, the respondents namely R.D.O. and Joint Collector could not have