( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THE first of these appeals is preferred by Smt K. R. Krishnaveni and the second by legal representatives of Shri (sic Smt) S. J. Kurien. The appeals are preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil revision Petition No. 4731 of 1997, dated 29-12-1999, whereby a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 1-7-1997 of the Joint Collector, Rangareddi district and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. The revision was filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 3 ) THE contesting respondents before us claim to be the legal representatives of protected tenants while the appellants are purchasers of the property from the original pattedar, Mr Adapa Narayana. The dispute is whether the predecessors of the respondents, namely, the original tenants were protected tenants or ordinary tenants. ( 4 ) FOLLOWING are the relevant facts: the lands are located in Surveys Nos. 597 and 598 of Khapra village, keesara mandal, Rangareddi district. One Adapa Narayana was the pattedar. According to the pattedar, one G. Komaraiah was cultivating the land prior to this as an ordinary tenant, that is to say, not as a protected tenant. In 1960, the said pattedar applied for permission under Section 47 of the Act for alienation of the agricultural land. Notices were issued by the Revenue divisional Officer to all concerned, including the said G. Komaraiah. It is stated that on 27-3-1960, the said Komaraiah and his brother G. Ramaswamy surrendered their rights by way of a document. On 1-7-1960, the said komaraiah gave a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that he was surrendering his tenancy rights and admitted having received compensation in a sum of Rs 116. According to the appellants, the name of the said Komaraiah was recorded in Part II of the revenue record in form V of Khapra village, Keesara mandal and Part II related to ordinary tenants other than the protected tenants, In the case of protected tenants, the act requires surrender before a statutory authority and in the case of an ordinary tenant, it was not necessary to obtain such permission. It is said that by way of abundant caution, the surrender statement was obtained from the revenue Divisional Officer, On 2-8-1960, permission was granted under sections 47 and 48 of the Act to the said Adapa Narayana to alienate the land in favour of Smt S. J. Kurien and Shri S. Venkataswamy. Thereafter, the abovesaid purchasers are said to have been put in possession of 20 acres and 2 guntas forming part of Surveys Nos. 597 and 598. It is stated that the purchaser Shri (sic Smt) S. J. Kurien dug wells, obtained electricity connections for drawing water from well and borrowed loans from financial institutions. ( 5 ) THE purchaser Smt Krishnaveni in her turn applied for permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act for alienation of half share and obtained an order on 6-11-1962 permitting sale. Similarly, Shri G. Venkataswamy also obtained permission on 28-1-1963 and both these purchasers made alienations. Thereafter, in 1970, Smt S. J. Kurien applied for permission for conversion of all the agricultural land into non-agricultural and a certificate was given on 25-5-1997 by the Tahsildar and the land in Surveys Nos, 597 and 598 was free from protected tenancy and that there were no government dues. On the basis of a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad east dated 20-7-1970 submitted to the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad district, the latter passed an order on 19-10-1970 permitting Smt Kurien to convert the land from agricultural into non-agricultural. Thereafter, she obtained a layout permission from the Gram Panchayat for plotting out the land in 5 acres 3 guntas in Survey No. 597 and plotted out the said land into various plots and sold them to various persons who constructed houses after obtaining necessary permission from the Panchayat and thereafter from the municipality. In 1972, when the lands were attached as belonging to original pattedar, Adapa Narayana in execution proceedings (EP No. 4 of 1969), the purchaser Smt S. J. Kurien filed objection petition, EA No. 210 of 1975. It is stated that in the said proceedings, an affidavit was filed by G. Ramaswamy in EA No. 210 of 1975 in EP No. 4 of 1969, the brother of Komaraiah stating before the IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, that he had surrendered rights in respect of theland and was not a protected tenant. It is stated that in the said proceedings, an affidavit was filed by G. Ramaswamy in EA No. 210 of 1975 in EP No. 4 of 1969, the brother of Komaraiah stating before the IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, that he had surrendered rights in respect of theland and was not a protected tenant. The decree-holder accepted the title of Smt S. J. Kurien and Smt Krishnaveni. On 1-10-1975 a notification was issued under Section 13 (0 of the A. P. Urban areas (Development) Act, 1975 declaring the land in Khapra village and keesara village as urban areas under Section 102 (e) of the A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy Act, 1960. Once the said notification was issued, the land covered by the notification got excluded from the operation of the Tenancy act of 1950. In 1981 G. Komaraiah died. On 3-2-1983, the declarations were filed by Smt S. J. Kurien under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On these facts, the appellants contended that the respondents predecessor was not a protected tenant. ( 6 ) FOR the first time in 1988, the legal representatives of Komaraiah started claiming that their father was a protected tenant. In order to ward off interference from Adapa Narayana, the purchaser Smt S. J. Kurien filed Civil suit No. 450 of 1988 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Hyderabad east and North Rangareddi district. ( 7 ) ON 27-2-1989, Smt S. J.- Kurien applied to Hyderabad Urban development Authority for developing the rest of the land and obtained permission on 4-8-1989 for construction of the houses by the purchasers. It was at that stage that the respondents filed an application under Section 40 of the Act to declare them as the heirs of Komaraiah, treating the late komaraiah as a protected tenant. They obtained an order on 4-1-1992 behind the back of Smt Krishnaveni and Smt S. J. Kurien, recording them as legal representatives of Komaraiah. ( 8 ) THE suit abovementioned for injunction was disposed of in favour of smt S. J. Kurien on 12-5-1992, inasmuch as the respondents did not lead evidence in support of their pleas as protected tenants. ( 9 ) THEREAFTER, for the first time, the respondents filed an application under section 32 for recovery of possession claiming that their father was a protected tenant. ( 9 ) THEREAFTER, for the first time, the respondents filed an application under section 32 for recovery of possession claiming that their father was a protected tenant. Shri (sic Smt) S. J. Kurien filed an appeal before the collector in 1994 against the order obtained by the respondents on 4-1-1992 that they were legal heirs of Komaraiah. That appeal was dismissed on 14-6- 1994 as time-barred. But the said order was set aside on 9-8-1994 by the high Court and the matter was remanded to the Mandal Revenue Officer to decide the entire question afresh including the said order regularising the respondents as the legal heirs of Komaraiah which treated Komaraiah as a protected tenant. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 5-10-1994, the Mandal Revenue Officer allowed the respondents application relying on the order dated 4-1-1992 abovementioned, passed under Section 40, though the High Court required the same to be ignored. The appeal filed against the said order failed and thereafter, Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2411 and 2669 of 1995 were filed. The matters were remanded by the High Court again, this time to the appellate Authority on 15-12-1995 by Shri Justice T. N. C. Rangarajan. Thereafter, the Joint Collector passed the impugned order dated 1-7-1997. ( 11 ) THE order passed by the Joint Collector is a well-considered order and makes a clear statement that the Joint Collector called for the original records and found that Komaraiah was not recorded as a protected tenant anywhere but was only an ordinary tenant, inasmuch as his name was recorded in Part II of Form V of the tenancy register. The Joint Collector also made a statement that the respondents were not able to file a single document to show that they are or Komaraiah was a protected tenant under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, 1950. On the said basis, the Joint Collector declared that the respondents father Mr Komaraiah was never a protected tenant and the respondents could not be recognised as legal heirs of a protected tenant under section 40 of the Act. On the said basis, the Joint Collector declared that the respondents father Mr Komaraiah was never a protected tenant and the respondents could not be recognised as legal heirs of a protected tenant under section 40 of the Act. It was further held that Shri G. Komaraiah and Shri G. Ramaswamy surrendered their rights by making an application before the revenue Divisional Officer and received compensation on 27-3-1960 and that the purchaser had obtained permission under Section 47 of the Act and also got the said property converted as urban land and also filed an application for a declaration under the Urban Ceiling Act and that therefore the respondents had no right in the property. ( 12 ) WHEN the matter went up to the High Court, the High Court interfered with this finding under the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Joint Collector to reconsider the same. The only reasoning given by the High Court was that when it called for the records, it found that the names of the tenant were not found either in Part 1 or Part II of the relevant register maintained under Section 50 of the Act and that only the names of "pattedars" were found both in Part I and Part II. The following statement of the High Court is significant:"on a perusal, it is found that the names of the pattedars are found in part I and Part II, the entries were made survey number-wise and there is no reference to the protected tenancy or the other tenants. " ( 13 ) THE High Court then found fault with the order of the Joint Collector in mentioning that the names of the protected tenants were found in Part II which related to ordinary tenants. Then it remanded the matter to the Joint collector. ( 14 ) EVEN by going by the order passed by the High Court, the names of "pattedars" alone were found in both Pan I and in Part II of the register and there was no reference in Part I or Part II to Komaraiah. That would mean that Komaraiah was neither a protected tenant nor an ordinary tenant. If that be so, his legal heirs would have no claim as protected tenants. That would mean that Komaraiah was neither a protected tenant nor an ordinary tenant. If that be so, his legal heirs would have no claim as protected tenants. ( 15 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not think it was proper on the part of the High Court to interfere with the finding of the Joint Collector and to remand the matter once again to the Joint Collector. The jurisdiction of the high Court under Section 91 is similar to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, even going by the reasoning given by the High Court which looked into the records, there was no case made out for a remand of the matter, if Komaraiahs name was not found in Part I or Part II. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has referred to certain copies of documents filed which are pahani patras of various years and also to the copy of the pahani patrik of 1954-55. We find that these copies were obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer on 7-7-2000 and 23-5-2000 and these dates are subsequent to the order impugned passed by the High Court. In our view, therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to rely upon them as evidence in the case when no such documents were relied upon by them before any of the lower authorities. ( 17 ) ONE thing very significant in the case is that Komaraiah who died in 1981, did not over a period of 30 years, raise a single claim before any authority that he was a protected tenant. On the other hand, he had made a statement before the Revenue Authorities that he was not a protected tenant. So far as the certified copy of the pahani patras now filed before us are concerned, we have to state that the name of Komaraiah is now found recorded in the certified copy dated 24-5-2000 and it also shows that for the first time Komaraiahs name was recorded as a protected tenant on 4-1-1992. This has reference to the order passed under Section 40 of the Act without notice either to Smt S. J. Kurien or Smt Krishnaveni earlier and which the high Court earlier directed to be ignored. This has reference to the order passed under Section 40 of the Act without notice either to Smt S. J. Kurien or Smt Krishnaveni earlier and which the high Court earlier directed to be ignored. The order recording the respondents as heirs of Mr Komaraiah under Section 40 can have relevance only if Komaraiah was a protected tenant. The respondents could not rely on the order dated 4-1-1992 after Justice Rangarajan said the matter has to be decided afresh ignoring the said order. ( 18 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we make it clear that Komaraiah was never a protected tenant and that the respondents had absolutely no material before them to claim that their father was a protected tenant. The High Court having found that Komaraiahs name did not find place either in Part I or Part ii of the particular register, should have come to the conclusion that komaraiah was neither a protected tenant nor an ordinary tenant. There was absolutely no scope for interference and for remand of the matter. ( 19 ) WE, therefore, set aside the impugned orders passed by the High court and restore that of the Joint Collector dated 1-7-1997. Both the appeals are allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.