ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the appellants against the Proceedings of the Joint Collector, Adilabad, vide Proceeding No. D4/T A/2/97, dated 20-6-1998 and Proceeding No. 04/1001/ 88, dated 15-11-1988 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Act). 2. The Joint Collector passed an order on 20-6-1998 against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchieral dated 6-1 0-1990 and he passed another order on 15-11-1988 on the representation made by the Management of the Zilla Parishad High School, Mancherial. A certificate of ownership u/s.38-E of the Act was issued in favour of Gaddam Durgaiah, s/o. Bhumaiah, the father of the revision petitioners in respect of an extent of AC.13.02 guntas of land in Survey No.92, AC.1.02 guntas of land in Survey No.93 and 28 guntas of land in Survey No.95. In the year 1990. the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued a show cause notice to the son of Gaddam Durgaiah by name Bhumaiah wherein it has been mentioned that the father was recognized as a protected tenant to an extent of AC.23.03 guntas of land. But the said land was sold away to so many persons, which was reflected in the entries of the pahanies. U/s.19 of the Act, the protected tenant should not do any acts of destruction of property sub-division or subletting or failure to cultivate the land personally or assignment of interest or using of the land for any purpose other than agriculture. Therefore, the protected tenancy certificate will be liable to be cancelled. It is noted that Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah, s/o. Gaddam Durgaiah, who is the protected tenant of the above-mentioned lands, sold away the lands by making house plots and the remaining land is also sold away to so many persons and he is not in physical possession of the property. Therefore, he was issued a show cause notice directing to show cause as to why the tenancy certificate should not be cancelled due to the above lapses and the explanation should reach the undersigned within a week after receipt of the notice, otherwise it will be deemed that he did not have any explanation and the matter will be decided ex parte. But, Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah did not turn up and did not file any reply to the show cause notice. But, Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah did not turn up and did not file any reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, he came to a conclusion that the said Bhumaiah has no material to defend himself on the points raised in the show cause notice served on him. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer observed that as per the pahani of 1988-90, the A.C.C. Mancherial is the pattadar to an extent of 29 guntas of land in Survey NO.95. As per the spot inspection, in Survey NO.93 so many residential houses have been built up and no cultivation was being taken up for more than 20 years and the land covered by Survey No.92 has been used as playground of the High School and in part of it, an RTG bus depot and residential houses of different individuals have been built up about 20 years ago. It shows that no cultivation was taken up for more than 20 years and the land has been subdivided and it was used for non-agricultural purpose. The Mandal Revenue Officer observed that Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah is not cultivating the land and sold away the same to other persons and violated the conditions imposed u/s.19 of the Act. In the circumstances mentioned above, the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the protected tenancy rights of Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 6-10-1990, the protected tenants preferred an appeal u/s.90(1) of the Act. In the said appeal, the appellants pleaded that they are the brothers and sons of late Durgaiah. They succeeded for the lands covered by survey Nos.92, 93 and 95 situated in Garmilla village of Mancherial Mandal. Their father, who was a protected tenant, died about 27 years prior to the year 1988. After death of their father, the appellants inherited the property and are in enjoyment of the same as tenants. They further pleaded that a reply was sent to the show cause notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the respondent without giving any opportunity to the first appellant passed the above order, which is against the natural justice. The appellants further pleaded that the respondent failed to give notice to the appellants 2 to 4 who are also equally having rights over the said property. The appellants further pleaded that the respondent failed to give notice to the appellants 2 to 4 who are also equally having rights over the said property. The appellants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment as tenants in common over the said lands and when the third parties tried to interfere with the possession in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.92 and 93 and forcibly trying to raise some constructions, the first appellant filed O.S.No.11 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Luxettipet for perpetual Injunction including the first respondent and obtained interim injunction not to interfere with the said property. The respondent knowing fully well that an order was passed by the Civil Court passed the impugned order ignoring the Civil Court order. Therefore the order is not enforceable and is liable to be set aside. The appellants further contended that the order was passed arbitrarily with out any enquiry and without giving an opportunity of being heard by the appellants and also without considering the reply given by the first appellant and by not giving notices. The subsequent proceedings were also not informed to the appellants, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 5. In the said appeal, the Joint Collector observed that the first appellant was issued a show cause notice u/s.19 of the Act and it was served on 26-09-1990 for giving his explanation for alienation of the protected tenancy land situated in Survey NO.92 comprising an extent of AC.6.28 guntas to Nelli Ramulu, s/o. Bhuchanna, through an ordinary sale deed dated 20-1-1954.lt is further mentioned that Sri Nelli Ramulu, in turn, sold away the land to an extent of AC.5.10 guntas to the President of the Forest Association, Mancherial on 16-3-1969. But, the said President has, in turn, donated the said land of AC.5.1 0 guntas and another extent of 32 guntas to the Zilla Parishad High School, Mancherial for playground and it is being used as a playground, therefore, the appellants claiming that they are in possession of the land is baseless. The appellants have alienated the land to others by contravening the provisions of Sections 48-A and 40 of the Act. The Joint Collector further observed that the appellants did not cultivate the land and sold away the same to Thoutam Veeramallu and others by violating the conditions imposed u/s.19 of the Act. The appellants have alienated the land to others by contravening the provisions of Sections 48-A and 40 of the Act. The Joint Collector further observed that the appellants did not cultivate the land and sold away the same to Thoutam Veeramallu and others by violating the conditions imposed u/s.19 of the Act. Therefore, he did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Regarding the interference of the land situated in Survey No.92, which is being used as a playground of the High School, the Chief Patron and parents of the Zilla Parishad High School, Mancherial submitted a representation to the Joint Collector. In the said representation, they mentioned that the building and the playground of the Zilla Parishad are located in Survey Nos.91 and 92 of Garmilla Village to an extent of AC.1.27 guntas and AC.6.02 guntas respectively. They further mentioned that one Sri Venkat Mutyam Rao was the pattadar of the above lands and Gaddam Durgaiah was recorded as protected tenant. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal conferred the ownership rights in favour of Gaddam Bhumaiah, the first appellant herein, in respect of Survey NO.92 admeasuring AC.13.10 guntas, but the possession of the above land has been with the High School as the very building and playground are in the above land. In the deposition given before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, the first appellant stated that the land situated in Survey NO.92 was sold to Thoputam Veeramallu and others from whom the High School authorities have purchased it. 7. In the light of the above representation the Joint Collector, Adilabad issued a show cause notice on 25-7-1988 mentioning that the first appellant contravened the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act, therefore, he is directed to show cause within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the protected tenancy certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal should not be cancelled. 8. In response to the show cause notice, Gaddam Bhumaiah submitted a reply through an advocate on 16-8-1998 stating that the matter is subjudice on the file of the District Munsif, Luxettipet in O.S.No.11 of 1988 and status quo order has been passed by the said Court on 2-2-1988 and he reserves his right to agitate all matters of the fact and law before the appropriate Court. 9. 9. The Joint Collector observed that u/s.99 of the Act. no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle or deal with any question. which is by or under the Act required to be settled. In view of the above provision, the Joint Collector took up the matter on file. The first appellant was summoned to the office on 6-9-1988. The first appellant made his appearance along with his advocate. But when the matter came up for final hearing on 8-11-1988, the protected tenant Bhumaiah and his counsel were absent. Therefore the Joint Collector passed an order on 15-11 -1988. 10. In the said order, the Joint Collector mentioned that Sri Venkat Mutyam Rao was 1, the pattadar of the lands to an extent of 9 AC.13.10 guntas in Survey NO.92, AC.9.04 guntas in Survey NO.93 and 29 guntas in s Survey NO.95 situated in Garmilla Village as per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Sri Gaddam Durgaiah and Nelli Ramulu were recorded as protected tenants over the lands in Survey No,92 to an extent of AC.6.22 guntas andAc.6.-28 guntas respectively. During the year 1974-75, an ownership certificate u/s.38-E of the Act has been issued to Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah, successor of the protected tenant, Sri Gaddam Durgaiah. The Joint Collector further observed that as per the records, Sri Nelli Ramulu was protected tenant over the land in Survey NO.92 for an extent of AC.6.28 guntas, but the ownership rights u/s.38-E of the Act were not conferred on him and the ownership rights were conferred on Sri Gaddam Bhumaiah for AC.13.02 guntas though he is entitled for only AC.6.22 guntas. The Joint Collector furtherobserved that as per the verification of the records, Sri Gaddam Durgaiah sold an extent of AC.6.28 guntas, out of Survey NO.92 to one Sri Nelli Ramulu, s/o. Buchaiah, through an ordinary sale deed dated 20-1-1954. Sri Nelli Ramulu, in turn, sold away an extent of AC.5.10 guntas out of AC.6.28 guntas purchased from Gaddam Durgaiah to the President, Forest Association, Mancherial on 16-3-1969. The said President donated the entire area of AC.5.10 guntas to the Zilla Parishad High School, Manche-nal for playground. Since then, the land is in the occupation of the school authorities and is being used for playground. 11. The said President donated the entire area of AC.5.10 guntas to the Zilla Parishad High School, Manche-nal for playground. Since then, the land is in the occupation of the school authorities and is being used for playground. 11. From the above circumstances, Sri Gaddam Durgaiah was protected tenantto an extent of AC.6.22 guntas only in Survey NO.92, but ownership certificate has been issued to him for AC.13.02 guntas. which is material Irregularity on the face to the record. The protected tenant also alienated the land in contravention of the provisions to Section 48 of the Act. Therefore, the ownership certificate issued in favour of Gaddam Bhumaiah is cancelled. 12. The two orders passed by the Joint Collector on 15-11-1 988 and 20-6-1 998 indicate that the land was not in possession of the appellants since 29 years and it was not being used as a cultivable land. It is also established through the record that the land was sold away to several persons for construction of houses and accordingly the houses were constructed. An RTC bus depot and a school with playground were also constructed. All these facts were not denied by the revision petitioners and simply stated that they were not given sufficient opportunity to put forward their contentions. Therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. 13. It is an undisputed fact that the first petitioner was granted ownership certificate u/s.38-E of the Act deeming that he shall be the owner of the land with effect from 1-1-1973. So, it is clear from the record that the first petitioner was declared as a protected tenant of the land with effect from 1-1-1973 and earlier to that he was only a tenant. But, the record discloses that late Gaddam Durgaiah was in possession of an extent of AC.6.22 guntas of land in Survey NO.92 and Nelli Ramulu was in possession of an extent of 6.28 guntas of land as per the entries made in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. The record further disc loses that Sri Gaddam Durgaiah sold an extent of 6.28 guntas of land to Nelli Ramulu through a sale deed dated 20-1-1954 while he was tenant of the land. The Act came into force with effect from 10-6-1950. The record further disc loses that Sri Gaddam Durgaiah sold an extent of 6.28 guntas of land to Nelli Ramulu through a sale deed dated 20-1-1954 while he was tenant of the land. The Act came into force with effect from 10-6-1950. By the date of sale, late Gaddam Durgaiah did not acquire ownership over the land as he was recognized as a protected tenant with effect from 1-1-1973. Unless he acquires ownership u/s.38-E of the Act, he is not entitled to sell away the land or failing to use the land for agriculture. The record further discloses that late Gaddam Durgalah Sold away the land for non-agricultural purpose and houses were constructed in the said land. An RTC bus depot was also established and the High School was using it as a playground. 14. In view of the above circumstances, it can be concluded that even before recognizing late Gaddam Durgaiah as a protected tenant, the land was sold away in the year 1954 In favour of Nelli Ramulu and he was not in possession and enjoyment of the land. Though he was in possession of the land as on the relevant date, he voluntarily sold away the land violating the conditions mentioned in Section 19 of the Act. When he has no right over an extent of 6.22 guntas, which was in possession of Nelli Ramulu and the remaining land in his possession was also sold away through an unregistered sale deed dated 20-1-1954. Neither title nor possession of the land remained with the protected tenants. The revenue authorities without proper verification issued the protected tenancy certificate in favour of the first petitioner on account of fraud played by him contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property without disclosing that he sold away the property to others and houses were constructed. 15. The object of the Act is to protect the interest of tenants of agricultural lands. But when the tenant resorts to sell away the property for non-agricultural purpose before recognizing him as a protected tenant, he is not entitled to agitate that he did not violate any conditions and the cancellation of the certificate is illegal. 16. 15. The object of the Act is to protect the interest of tenants of agricultural lands. But when the tenant resorts to sell away the property for non-agricultural purpose before recognizing him as a protected tenant, he is not entitled to agitate that he did not violate any conditions and the cancellation of the certificate is illegal. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when once the ownership certificate is Issued in favour of any person u/ s.38-E of the Act, no remedy is available to any person or authority and even if the certificate is issued to a wrong person, there is no remedy provided under the Act to correct the said mistake and even if the tenant is not in possession of the property, he IS entitled for restoration of the same. Late Gaddam Durgalah sold away the land before his recognition as protected tenant and he sold It away by dividing the same into plots for construction of houses, after receiving sale consideration from all the purchasers and when late Gaddam Durgaiah or his son parted with the land on their own accord, they cannot again say that those transactions are not binding on them and the revenue authorities cannot cancel the certificate and the orders of the Joint Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer are liable to be set aside. 17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in support of his contentions relied on the following Judgments: i) In Sada and others v. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and another, the Full Bench of this Court dealt with the rights of protected tenant, who was recognized as owner of the land under Section 38-E of the Act, when he is not in physical possession as on the date of granting of ownership certificate and his entitlement for possession of the property etc., and held as follows: "It is clear from Section 38-E that it is for these "Protected tenants" who are finally declared to be "protected tenants and included in the Register prepared for that purpose and for whom protected tenancy certificates have been issued, that ownership rights are envisaged in Section 38-E(1), subject of course, to the limitation with regard to extent of holdings as specified in Section 38(7) and to the proviso to Section 38-E(1 ). Once persons who held land on the dates or for the periods mentioned in Sections 35, 37 and 37 -A and the requirement of physical possession on the dates required in those sections is satisfied, such persons have become "protected tenants". Once a person becomes a protected tenant, he earns a qualification to become an owner by force of statute, subject of course to the qualification regarding extent in Section 38(7) and to the proviso to Section 38-E(1). There is no requirement in the Act that he should also be in possession on the date specified in the notification issued in Section 38-E(1). The words "all lands held by protected tenants" is more a description of the lands with regard to which the right as "protected tenant" has been declared and there are no words requiring physical possession on the date specified in the notification. A person "holds" the land as protected tenant if he is still a "protected tenant" on the notified date though out of possession. As long as his right as protected tenant has not been determined by date of notification, in a manner known to the Act, he "holds" the land as protected tenant, whether physically in possession or not. For the vesting of the ownership of land "held" by a protected tenant under Section 38-E(1), it is not necessary that the protected tenant should have been in physical possession on the date of notification. It is sufficient if he continued to hold the status of a "protected tenant" as on the notified date even if not in physical possession and he satisfied the requirements of Section 38(7) of the Act. This is also subject to the proviso to Section 38-E(1 )." (ii) In S. Premsingh v. Purushatham, the A.P. High Court while considering the scope of Order 20 Rule 11 (2), held that when the amendment made to the provision was not providing for consent of a decree holder for ordering payment of decretal amount in instalments by judgment debtor by repealing the earlier provision is not applicable to a decree obtained after amendment. iii) In Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court while dealing with the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, as amended by Bihar Act 25 of 1947. iii) In Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court while dealing with the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, as amended by Bihar Act 25 of 1947. held that the wording in the resolution shall use with an intent to give sufficient flexibility to the Deputy Commissioner to implement the socioeconomic policy of the Act viz. to prevent inroads upon the rights of the ignorant, illiterate and backward citizens. Hence, may be exercised even after the period of limitation, but cannot be exercised after an unreasonably long time during which third party interests might have come into existence. In the case covered by the above decision. the tenant surrendered to the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur by a registered deed of 1938. Soon thereafter the landlord settled the land on the appellants in 1938 itself. The appellants have been in possession of the land and cultivating it. On 3-2-1978, the said tenant filed an application under Section 71-A of the Act by restoration of the land in question on the ground that the appellants had fraudulently acquired the land by means of a "sada hukumnama". In the light of the above circumstances, the Supreme Court made the above observations. 18. Section 38-E(1) of the Act reads as follows: 38-E. Ownership at lands held by protected tenants to stand transferred to them from a notified date: (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter or any law for the time being in force or any custom, usage, judgment, decree, contract or grant to the contrary, the Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. declare in respect of any area and from such date as may be specified Therein, that ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their land-holders in such area under any provision of this Chapter shall subject to the condition laid down ill sub-section (7) of Section 38 stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands; Provided that where in respect 01 any such land, any proceeding under Section 19 or Section 32 or Section 44 is pending on the date so notified, the transfer of ownership 01 such land shall take effect on the date, on which such proceeding is finally decided, and when the tenant retains possession of the land in accordance with the decision in such proceeding." 19. There is no dispute about the principle laid down by the Full Bench decision. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from the facts and circumstances covered by the above decision. In the Full Bench decision, stress was laid mostly on the possession by the protected tenant as on the date of recognizing him as owner of the land. 20. Under the Act, the land was defined under Section 2(1)(j), which reads as follows: "Land" means agricultural land whether alienated or unalienated; and includes land used for purposes subservient to agriculture and all benefits arising out of such land and things thereon attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." 21. The Act is applicable to the agricultural land and whereas in the present case, the land was converted into non-agricultural land in 1954 by alienating the same for construction of houses and establishment of school, therefore, the Act is not applicable to tile present case. Therefore, there is no scupe to question the action of the Revenue Authorities in cancelling Section 38(E) certificate wrongly issued ill favour of the petitioners. 22. Therefore, there is no scupe to question the action of the Revenue Authorities in cancelling Section 38(E) certificate wrongly issued ill favour of the petitioners. 22. In the light of the above circumstances the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Joint Collector were right in cancelling the ownership certificate granted under Section 38-E of the Act as the cultivating tenant lost the right of possession over the property by alienating the land to be used for nonagricultural purpose by selling away the same to third parties. Therefore, I do not find any ground in this revision to interfere with the impugned orders of the Joint Collector. 23. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders as costs.