( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 30-5-2003, passed by the joint Collector, Rangareddy District, in an appeal presented before him, under section 90 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to an extent of ac. 88. 00 of land in various survey numbers of Mangalapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal. ( 3 ) ONE Dademia was the pattedar of land in an extent of about Acs. 1000. 00 to 1200. 00 in various survey numbers of Mangalapalli village. The predecessors-in-title of the respondents viz. , Uppari Kesavulu and Vadla narasimha, along with 13 others, were recognized as protected tenants in respect of vast extent of land. Those lands were in old survey Nos. 80 to 111. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed an application in the year 1982, before the Revenue Divisional officer, Hyderabad East, for conferment of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the act, in respect of the lands for which they were protected tenants. Atluri seetharamaiah, predecessor-in-title of petitioners 2 to 6, filed objection before the revenue Divisional Officer. According to him, respondents were tenants in respect of certain extent of land in various survey numbers, and ultimately they have surrendered their tenancy rights on 16-12-1966, in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. It was his case that permission to purchase the lands, admeasuring Ac. 88. 00 in new Survey Nos. 232, 325 to 330, was obtained from the then Tahasildar vide proceedings dated 28-2-1967, and thereafter, he purchased the said lands through sale deed dated 28-7-1967. ( 5 ) THE Revenue Divisional Officer considered the applications filed by the respondents and ultimately passed an order dated 24-9-1983 conferring ownership rights on them, in respect of Ac. 76. 00 in Survey nos. 324 to 328. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the joint Collector, Rangareddy District. In his order dated 5-1-1988, the Joint Collector observed that there was dispute as to the identity of the lands as well as the validity of surrender of tenancy rights. Hence, he set aside the order dated 24-9-1983 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and remanded for de nova enquiry with a specific direction that necessary issues be framed and matter be decided, after examining the evidence on record. Hence, he set aside the order dated 24-9-1983 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and remanded for de nova enquiry with a specific direction that necessary issues be framed and matter be decided, after examining the evidence on record. ( 6 ) AFTER the remand, the Revenue divisional Officer took up the enquiry. Through his order dated 29-11-1999, he rejected the claim of the respondents holding that the lands, in question, were not held by them, as protected tenants. Thereupon, the respondents preferred an appeal before the joint Collector. Through the order under revision, the Joint Collector reversed the finding recorded by the Revenue Divisional officer in the order dated 29-11-1999 and ultimately held that the respondents are entitled to be conferred the ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Act in respect of the lands held by them. In effect, he affirmed the order dated 24-9-1983 passed by the Revenue divisional Officer in the first round of litigation. ( 7 ) SRI K. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondents surrendered their tenancy rights in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, and thereby, they ceased to hold any rights in respect of the lands. He contends that there was a serious dispute as to the identity of the lands in respect of which the respondents are the tenants, on the one hand, and those that were purchased by the petitioners on the other. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when the Joint Collector, in the first round of litigation, has made a clear observation that there is a dispute as to the identity of the lands and remanded the matter with a specific direction to frame an issue in this regard, the revenue Divisional Officer has not chosen to comply with the same. It is his case that the lapse on the part of the Revenue Divisional officer by itself did not enable the Joint collector to record findings without there being any evidence or record before him. It is his case that the lapse on the part of the Revenue Divisional officer by itself did not enable the Joint collector to record findings without there being any evidence or record before him. ( 8 ) SRI A. Pulla Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents are protected tenants in respect of the lands in question, since last several decades and on being satisfied that the alleged surrender made by them was not in accordance with law, the Revenue Divisional Officer conferred ownership right upon them in his proceedings dated 24-9-1983. He contends that in the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the Joint Collector set aside the order dated 24-9-1983 and when there was a specific direction as to the identification of the land, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not chosen to comply with the same. Learned counsel further submits that in the second round of litigation, the Joint Collector verified the records and was satisfied that the lands held by the petitioners are the same that were the subject matter of the proceedings and that the alleged surrender is inoperative in law. He refers to the finding of the Joint Collector as to the validity of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and urges that no interference is called for in the proceedings. ( 9 ) IN respect of the lands, which were held by one Mr. Dademia and his successors, two parallel claims have emerged, one from the respondents and the other from the petitioners. The respondents claim that they are the protected tenants in respect of about ac. 76. 00 of land, whereas the petitioners-claims that they purchased an extent of ac. 88. 00 of land, including the one claimed by the respondents. The actual confrontation between the petitioners and the respondents took place when the respondents approached the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the act. At that stage, the first petitioner objected. It was his case that the oredecessors-in-title of the respondents surrendered the tenancy rights and thereafter, lands were purchased by him, after obtaining permission under sections 47 and 48 of the Act. The Revenue divisional Officer discussed the matter extensively, with reference to the respective rights of the parties before him, and ultimately granted ownership rights in favour of the respondents. The Revenue divisional Officer discussed the matter extensively, with reference to the respective rights of the parties before him, and ultimately granted ownership rights in favour of the respondents. ( 10 ) IT was in respect of the lands in old survey Nos. 80 to 111 that rights of protected tenancy were pleaded. On a verification of the record, the Revenue Divisional Officer furnished the corresponding new survey numbers to old Survey Nos. 80 to 111. The lands purchased by the petitioners are those in survey Nos. 322 and 325 to 330. These survey numbers do not find place in the corresponding new survey numbers for the old survey Nos. 80 to 111. The grant of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the act can be only in respect of the lands held by certain individuals, as protected tenants. In other words, it is impermissible for any authority to confer ownership rights in any lands other than those which were held by protected tenants. It was for this reason, that the Joint Collector observed that unless the controversy as to the identity of the land was resolved, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have conferred the ownership rights. In the remand order, he gave specific directions for framing of issues in this regard and for disposal of the matter afresh, after recording the evidence. The relevant portion reads as under:"i am therefore, constrained to remand the case to the R. D. O. , Hyd. , East to hold de novo enquiry in this matter in the presence of the parties by framing specific issues and after examining the evidence on record and such other evidences as may be produced by the parties. " ( 11 ) A reading of the order dt. 29-11-1999, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, after remand, discloses that he did not comply with the directions of the Joint Collector. The issues framed by the Revenue Divisional officer are as under: "issue No. 1: who was the land holder of Sy. Nos. 325, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 330 as on 1st January, 1973. Issue No. 2: What was the holding of the land holder as on 1st January, 1973. Issue No. 3: Whether Sri Mohmd. Nadeem Ali was the holder of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 325,327, 328,329 and 330 over which the ownership certificate u/s. 38-E of the Tenancy Act; 1950 was issued. Issue No. 2: What was the holding of the land holder as on 1st January, 1973. Issue No. 3: Whether Sri Mohmd. Nadeem Ali was the holder of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 325,327, 328,329 and 330 over which the ownership certificate u/s. 38-E of the Tenancy Act; 1950 was issued. "no issue was framed as to whether the lands, in respect of which the respondents claim to be protected tenants on the one hand and those purchased by the petitioners, are one and the same. Therefore, there was a clear lapse on the part of the Revenue Divisional officer in complying with the specific directions of the Joint Collector. Through his order dated 29-11-1999, the Revenue divisional Officer held that the lands in question are not held by the respondents, as protected tenants. Therefore, the respondents preferred an appeal. ( 12 ) THERE were several justifications for the Joint Collector to set aside the findings recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated 29-11-1999. However, it was not open to him to have recorded findings by himself how so ever grave the lapse on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer may ha ve been. The Joint Collector himself framed an issue touching on the aspect of the identify of the land, existence of tenancy and validity of surrender. It was not as if the Joint Collector recorded any evidence on the issues framed by himself. An appellate authority can certainly re-appreciate the entire matter with reference to the issues framed by the original authority and the evidence recorded by it. However, it is totally impermissible for the appellate authority to frame altogether different issues and record findings, without there being any fresh evidence. To that extent, the whole exercise not only smacks on arbitrariness, but becomes violative of principles of fair play and natural justice. Having framed the issues touching on this aspect, the Joint Collector recorded findings and held that the respondents are entitled to be conferred with ownership rights under section 38-E of the Act. Such a course of action is impermissible in law. He has proceeded further to declare that the sale of the land in favour of petitioners is invalid. Having framed the issues touching on this aspect, the Joint Collector recorded findings and held that the respondents are entitled to be conferred with ownership rights under section 38-E of the Act. Such a course of action is impermissible in law. He has proceeded further to declare that the sale of the land in favour of petitioners is invalid. It also needs to be observed that the Joint collector himself did not record a finding as to whether the lands claimed by both the parties are one and the same or different from each other. ( 13 ) BOTH the parties claim to be in possession of the lands in question. One important aspect which needs to be taken into account is that the predecessor-in-title of the respondents filed O. S. Nos. 177 and 179 of 1975 in the Court of District Munsif, ibrahimpatnam for permanent injunction against the landholders in respect of an extent of Ac. 43. 00 in old survey Nos. 106 and ac. 49. 00 in old survey No. 85 of Mangalapalli village. In both the suits, the first petitioner got himself impleaded and later on got deleted from the array of the parties. The suits were decreed on 28-7-1979, and decrees are said to be in force even as on today. In that view of the matter, the respondents shall be entitled to be in possession over the land, which is the subject matter of those two suits. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry and disposal. This Court takes serious view of the lapse on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer in ignoring the specific directions of the Joint Collector to frame issues touching on the identity of the land. The parties cannot be subjected to repeated rounds of litigation. To avoid further complications in the matter, the matter is remanded for adjudication on the following issues:-a) Whether the lands, which were held by the respondents and their predecessors-in-title as protected tenants, are the same as those purchased by the petitioners? and b) Whether the surrender of tenancy rights, said to have been made by and on behalf of the respondents, is valid in law? ( 15 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly, allowed. and b) Whether the surrender of tenancy rights, said to have been made by and on behalf of the respondents, is valid in law? ( 15 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly, allowed. Having regard to the fact that the litigation between the parties started decades ago, the Revenue Divisional officer is directed to ensure that the matter is decided as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.