- (1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be the heirs and successors of one Sri Laxman, son of Gangaram and Gangaram, son of Laxman, who are protected tenants in respect of the land in S.Nos.199 and 200 of Sunkini Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District. According to the petitioners their predecessors in title Sri Laxman, son of Gangaram and Gangaram, son of Laxman were the protected tenants in respect of the lands owned by one Smt. Laxmi Bai. Their names were recorded in the record of Protected Tenants prepared and maintained under the Act. At their request the ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Act were also given to them. It is their further case that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted an application before Respondent No.2 seeking correction of the fathers names in the protected tenancy certificates to be (1) Laxman, son of Hanumanthu in the place of Laxman, son of Gangaram, and (2). Gangaram, son of Shivaram in the place of Gangaram, son of Laxman. The respondent No.2 passed orders dated 26-11-1990, acceding to the request of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal before respondent No.l under Section 90 of the Act. The respondent No.l without taking into account various questions of fact had confirmed the orders of respondent No.2 by his order, dated 13-2-1994. Hence the civil revision petition.
(3.) Mr. V. Ravi Kiran, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once a particular individual is declared as protected tenant in respect of a particular piece of land, it becomes final and any correction of it can only be under Section 35 of the Act and in no other manner. The status of the protected tenancy in respect of the predecessors of his clients having become final, the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. He further submits that the Act is a self-contained code and any corrections should be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act only. The respondent No.2 did not state or indicate as to under what provision he entertained the application filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and passed the order. He further submits that even otherwise any discrepancy in the certificates as to the particulars of the protected tenants has to be resolved only with reference to the entries in the permanent register of Protected Tenancy and not otherwise and inasmuch as the respondent No.2 had decided the matter on the basis of the records and statements, which are other than the register of Protected Tenancy, the order of the respondent No.2 is not sustained.;