Judgment : The unsuccessful appellants before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar filed the present Civil Revision Petition assailing the order in appeal No.C3/14339/89, dated 9-11-1990. The facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are briefly stated hereunder: 16 items of land in various survey numbers of Konur village, Odela Mandal and 11 items of land in different survey numbers in Madipalli Mandal, Sreerampur Mandal, Karimnagar District were held by Md. Habeebuddin Farooqui, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the original land holder”). These lands were in occupation of the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest as protected tenants. The tenants approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli for issue of ownership certificates under Section 38E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"). The Revenue Divisional Officer has accordingly granted the ownership certificates during the lifetime of the original land holder. Neither the appellants filed a copy of the proceeding of the Revenue Divisional Officer nor gave the date on which the ownership certificates were issued. In the absence of any such details, at least the year, if not the date, in which the ownership certificates were issued, is not known. The original land holder died on 21-11-1984. The appellants filed an appeal in the year 1989 seeking setting aside of the ownership certificates issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli. This appeal was dismissed by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, by his order dated 9-11-1990. While attacking the order of the Joint Collector, Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to confer ownership on a protected tenant, the holding of the landholder shall not be less than two times the family holding. She stated that the petitioners have pleaded before the Joint Collector that as the family is entitled to two family holdings, ownership certificates shall not be issued unless it is shown that the land held by them is two times the family holdings i.e., four family holdings. She further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not issue notice either to the original land holder during his life time or to the petitioners under Rule 5(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules 1973. She further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not issue notice either to the original land holder during his life time or to the petitioners under Rule 5(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules 1973. In support of her submission that the family of the land holder does not hold more than four family holdings, the learned counsel filed proceedings No.P/1028/75, dated 1-9-1977 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli. Opposing the above submissions, the learned counsel for the private respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submitted that the reasons on which the Joint Collector has dismissed the appeal are sound and that they do not call for any interference. They have submitted that as the appeal filed by the land holder was dismissed, the petitioners were not entitled to maintain another appeal and that the Joint Collector has rightly dismissed the appeal. I shall now consider the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the facts and law. Section 38(E) of the Act was introduced by Act 3 of 1954 and it came into force on 4-2-1954. It provides for transfer of ownership of lands in favour of the protected tenants in respect of the lands held by them as protected tenants. It is useful to reproduce Section 38(E)(1), which reads as under: “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 in subsection (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 of 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 of 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. Explanation: If a protected tenant, on account of his being dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date of the notification issued thereunder, then for the purposes of the sub-section, such protected tenant shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal or other authority, be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of the notification; and accordingly, the Tahsildar shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suo motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry, and direct that such land in possession of the landholder or any person claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from the possession of the landholder or such person, as the case may be, and shall be restored to the protected tenant and the provisions of this section shall apply thereto in every respect as if the protected tenant had held the land on the date of such notification.” The conferment of ownership on a protected tenant under Section 38-E(1) of the Act is subject to the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Act, which is as under: “The right of a protected tenant under this section to purchase from his landholder the land held by him as a protected tenant shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- If the protected tenant does not hold any land as a landholder, the purchase of the land held by him as a protected tenant shall be limited to the extent of the area of a family holding for the local area concerned. If the protected tenant holds any land as a landholder, the purchase of the land held by him as a protected tenant shall be limited to such area as along with other land held by him as a landholder will make the total area of land that will be held by him as a landholder equal to the area of a family holding for the local area concerned: Provided that the land remaining is more than the land which the protected tenant is entitled to purchase under this section, the first preference to purchase the said land, at the prevailing market price in the local area, shall vest in the protected tenant; Provided further that in the case of purchase by any person other than the protected tenant, the rights and interests of the said tenant in the lease land, shall continue as before. The extent of the land remaining with the landholder after the purchase of the land by the protected tenant, whether to cultivate it personally or otherwise, shall not be less than two times the area of a family holding for the local area concerned. For the present case, clause (c) of sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Act assumes importance because the sheet-anchor of the case of the petitioners is that the family of the original land holder does not have more than two times the area of a family holding. Under this provision, a protected tenant is entitled to conferment of ownership, if, after purchase of the land by him, the extent of the remaining land with the land holder, whether to cultivate it personally or otherwise, is less than two times the area of a family holding for the local area concerned. While dealing with the provisions of Section 38-E and Section 38(7) of the Act, this Court in Samala Venkaiah and others Vs. Bakka Nagaiah and others 1988(1) ALT 703, held that for computing the holding and for considering whether the conditions under Section 38(7) are satisfied, the relevant date is 1-1-1973, which was the notified date for the Rules prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.3, Revenue-G, dated 1-1-1973 and that Section 38(7) of the Act does not speak of any aggregation by adding up the land held by husband and wife unlike under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Ceiling Act”). Indeed, this Court has drawn a distinction between the provisions of the Ceiling Act and the Act in computing a family holding. In that case, this Court held that a family consisting of three brothers (one of the brothers died and was survived by his son) are entitled to retain one family holding by each of the two brothers and by the son of the deceased brother. As noted above, neither the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the strength of which the ownership certificates were issued, nor the ownership certificates have been placed by either party before the Court. Except the order passed by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, no other record is available before the Court. This Court, on 7-2-2012 passed an order directing the Joint Collector, Karimnagar to produce all the available record relating to the appeal before him and that failing which he should appear in person. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Karimnagar appeared before this Court on 28-2-2012 and filed an affidavit stating that file bearing No.C3/14339/89, dated 9-11-1990 was destroyed after obtaining permission from the District Collector on 8-11-1994 and that File No.D4/9011/75 relating to the appeal was also destroyed after obtaining permission from the District Collector on 7-11-1988. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners seriously questioned the correctness of the claim of the Joint Collector that the records were destroyed. She has pointed out that in the impugned order, the Joint Collector referred to worksheet and records produced by the Revenue Divisional Officer and submitted that had the original record been destroyed on 7-11-1988, there would not have been any scope for the Joint Collector to peruse the record while passing his order on 9-11-1990. The order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition was passed as far back as 9-11-1990 and several officers would have succeeded to the one who passed the order. Unfortunately, there is no one to explain about the above noted inconsistency with reference to the record. The petitioners have not attributed motives to the present Joint Collector. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by him, on oath, that the entire record relating to the case on hand has been destroyed. Thus, the efforts made by this Court to examine the case with reference to the record, regrettably, have not borne fruition. The petitioners have not attributed motives to the present Joint Collector. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by him, on oath, that the entire record relating to the case on hand has been destroyed. Thus, the efforts made by this Court to examine the case with reference to the record, regrettably, have not borne fruition. In the instant case, as noted above, a plea was raised by the petitioners that they do not hold more than four family holdings. It obviously implies that their family is entitled to retain two Standard Holdings under the Ceiling Act and as per the order passed under that Act by the Land Reforms Tribunal, the family holds less than four Standard Holdings. With reference to this plea, the Joint Collector held that as there is admission that the petitioners’ family holds more than two family holdings, the protected tenants are entitled to conferment of ownership rights. As discussed above, the computation of the extent should be made as on 1-1-1973. The material available on record does not show as to how many Standard Holdings the petitioners’ family was held entitled to as on 1-1-1973. Unless there is clear proof that in addition to the original land holder any of his family members were entitled to separate family holdings, there is no basis for the petitioners’ plea that they are entitled to hold land upto four family holdings. Unfortunately, the petitioners did not file the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli issuing ownership certificates to the respondents which would have certainly thrown light on this aspect. In the absence of definite proof that as on 1-1-1973, the family of the petitioners was entitled to hold two family holdings, conferment of ownership on the protected tenants cannot be held to be illegal because the petitioners’ family was holding nearly four Standard Holdings which is more than twice the family holding if the family is held to be entitled to hold one family holding. The order of the Land Reforms Tribunal under the Ceiling Act was passed on 1-9-1977. It is not clear therefrom whether the computation was made as on 1-1-1973. Further more, the order of the Joint Collector shows that the appeal filed by the original land-holder on 5-9-1975 vide file No.B4/9011/75 against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting ownership rights was dismissed. It is not clear therefrom whether the computation was made as on 1-1-1973. Further more, the order of the Joint Collector shows that the appeal filed by the original land-holder on 5-9-1975 vide file No.B4/9011/75 against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting ownership rights was dismissed. Even though the petitioners feigned ignorance in this regard, in the absence of record, this Court has no reason to disbelieve this finding of fact recorded by the Joint Collector. Once the original land holder has failed in his attempt to get the order of the Primary Authority set aside, his legal heirs cannot be allowed to pursue the litigation once over by filing a fresh appeal. This Court has found inherent limitations in undertaking a deeper scrutiny of the case in the absence of any record which would have thrown better light on the facts of the case. For all the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition should fail and the same is accordingly dismissed.