JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which represents individual land owners who have purchased the lands/residential plots in Sy. Nos. 246 to 269 of Bowrampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased the lands after certain agricultural land was laid out into plots in the year 1984, for which Panchayat approval was also given in the year 1984. There was a dispute between the original pattadar of the land Sri B.V. Prakash Reddy and his tenants. The said dispute was settled in terms of the Tenancy Act whereby 60% interest was given to the tenants and 40% interest was given to the landlord. An agreement was entered into between the tenants, the landlord and some firms which entered into certain agreements with the tenants. Latter, registered General Power of Attorneys (GPA) were executed by the tenants and the heirs of Sri B.V. Prakash Reddy also. Pursuant to these GPAs, sale deeds were executed in favour of the individual plot owners. The plot owners are in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1984 and taxes are being collected from them. While this possession continued, without hearing the petitioners and without considering the ground reality, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has issued certificates under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in favour of respondents 4 to 32. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners invoked the statutory remedies and challenged the same. However, the Joint Collector passed an order dated 2.3.2002 ignoring the facts on record and the law on the subject. Against the order of the Joint Collector dated 2.3.2002, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the Joint Collector, RDO and MRO. Respondents 4 to 32 are the contesting respondents. Later, for some respondents their representatives were added. The present appeal is thus against 57 respondents. The respondents urged and argued that the order passed in their favour granting final certificates are legally valid and correct. They also urge that the society has no locus standi to file the application as the Tenancy Act only applies to the disputes pertaining to tenant and the landlord only. The society is neither a tenant nor a landlord. The respondents urged and argued that the order passed in their favour granting final certificates are legally valid and correct. They also urge that the society has no locus standi to file the application as the Tenancy Act only applies to the disputes pertaining to tenant and the landlord only. The society is neither a tenant nor a landlord. They also urged that in the civil suits filed by the appellants, an interim order was granted and was also vacated and that the individual plot owners are not in possession of the property. Therefore, it is urged that the revision filed is incorrect and not as per law. They also urged that the order passed by the Joint Collector is a correct and valid order. It is also strongly urged that the sale deeds which are executed in favour of the appellants within eight years of December, 1979 are also void in law. They urged that the actions taken by respondents 1 to 3 are perfectly correct. Therefore, they prayed that the revision should be dismissed. 4. This Court has heard Sri U. Muralidhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 5. Both the Counsel relied upon the paper book and the documents therein filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. A copy was served on the respondents Counsel. These are a compilation of the record filed before the RDO, East Division/Joint Collector, R.R. District. 6. Sri U. Muralidhar Rao, learned Counsel, put in a great deal of effort in tracing the history of the case including the orders passed. Learned Counsel pointed out that the land in question initially belonged to Sri B.V. Prakash Reddy, who was the original land owner and pattadar. His tenants alienated their share of the lands in 1982 to different firms. This was done even before Certificate of Ownership were given to them under the Act. Later, the pattadar, his family members and the firms entered into a compromise and executed registered general power of attorneys in favour of P. Lakshma Reddy, S. Venkata Reddy and T. Gopal Reddy. These three GPA holders executed sale deeds in favour of individual land owners. The land was converted into plots after obtaining approval from the Grampanchayat and the lands were sold. These three GPA holders executed sale deeds in favour of individual land owners. The land was converted into plots after obtaining approval from the Grampanchayat and the lands were sold. The powers of attorney executed in favour of these three people by the family members of B.V. Prakash Reddy and the tenants are exhibited and filed. Thereafter, sale deeds were also executed in favour of individual plot owners and the same are also filed. 7. Learned Counsel also pointed out that in December, 1979 itself, the tenants were given Certificate of Ownership under Section 39-E of the Act. These documents are at Pages 38 to 69 of the paper book. These certificates, according to the learned Counsel, recognize the title of the individual tenants and confer full rights of ownership on them. 8. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the possession of the purchasers (members of the society) is borne out by the pahanies that are filed; the building permission that is granted in certain plots, the non-agricultural tax that is collected and also the land regularisation by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). The layout in the land that was formed with the Panchayat approval was later regularized by the proceedings of the HMDA in May, 2017 and these proceedings are filed at Pages 281 to 353 of the paper book. Learned Counsel also pointed out that on 30.10.1996 the MRO, Qutubullapur addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar not to register the lands in view of the dispute pending. But in the letter, it is clearly mentioned that the land is laid out into "individual plots". The names of the purchasers of the property including their sale deeds are submitted to the MRO, who passed orders in October, 1996 and in March, 1997 recognizing the title of the plot owners and directing that the name of the association should be included in the column possessors of the record of rights. These orders passed on various dates are filed at Pages 364 to 377 of the paper book. 9. While this situation was there on the ground, as per the petitioners, the RDO by overlooking the record called for a report from the MRO and then proceeded to issue fresh certificates under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of respondents. These orders passed on various dates are filed at Pages 364 to 377 of the paper book. 9. While this situation was there on the ground, as per the petitioners, the RDO by overlooking the record called for a report from the MRO and then proceeded to issue fresh certificates under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of respondents. Learned Counsel points out that once a certificate was already issued in December, 1979, the issuance of a subsequent certificate is bad in law. Learned Counsel relied upon the following entry which is there in Para 3 of each of the certificates issued: "It is hereby declared that the said tenant Sri ..............................shall be deemed to be the owner of the said land with effect from 1st January, 1973 as against the land holder and all other persons having any interest therein." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Learned Counsel argued on the basis of this that the right of the protected tenant was recognized by this certificate. He argued that the plain language interpretation of this certificate shows that a tenant shall be deemed to be the owner with effect from 1.1.1973 which is the notified date. Subsequent to this, the formation of the layout, the execution of the registered GPAs etc., has taken place and the possession of the purchasers has been recognized. Therefore, the learned Counsel argued that the subsequent actions are illegal and contrary to law. He relies upon a Full Bench decision reported in Sada v. The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and others, 1987 (2) ALT 749 and argues that the certificate is a conclusive evidence of the title and ownership of the protected tenant and cannot be deviated by any subsequent enquiry. 11. This Certificate of Ownership, according to the learned Counsel shuts out all further enquiry. Learned Counsel pointed out that in view of the sale deeds that were executed, the layout that was formed, collection of taxes etc., the subsequent action of the Joint Collector is incorrect. He also argues that the finding of the Joint Collector that the sale deeds were executed within eight years in 1997 is not correct. The learned Counsel argues that even though this certificate was granted in December, 1979, it relates back to the notified date 1.1.1973 and that therefore, the sale deeds executed are not hit by Section 48(A) of the Tenancy Act. 12. The learned Counsel argues that even though this certificate was granted in December, 1979, it relates back to the notified date 1.1.1973 and that therefore, the sale deeds executed are not hit by Section 48(A) of the Tenancy Act. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the litigation that was pending including the suit OS No. 201 of 1999 filed by the present petitioner-society. He points out that the suit ended in a decree and the decree of injunction granted in OS No. 201 of 1999 was confirmed in an appeal by the District Judge in AS No. 272 of 2014 and also in SA No. 375 of 2016. Learned Counsel also points out that the parallel proceedings against the order of the Joint Collector that pursued by his clients in WA Nos. 2219 and 2304 of 2015 and CRP No. 1368 of 2010. Learned Counsel points out that the mutation of names in favour of the opposite parties was initially upheld by this Court. He also points out that the matter went to the Supreme Court and the order passed in the writ appeals were set aside. The Supreme Court noted the pendency of the suits including OS No. 201 of 1999 and therefore directed the parties to agitate their rights before the civil Court. 13. In view of all the above, the learned Counsel argued mat his clients have succeeded in more than one litigation and that therefore, he is entitled to the complete relief as prayed for in the present petition. 14. In reply thereto, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Sri P. Venugopal, pointed out that the history of the case and also the reason behind the legislation namely, the Tenancy Act. He argued that the said Act applies only to the tenants and landlords and that the petitioner-society which is formed to represent the interests of the so-called plot owners does not have a right to agitate the case. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that there are disputed questions of fact and law in this matter and it is only a civil Court that can go into the correctness or otherwise of the possession of title. He also argued that the revision was filed in 2010 whereas it should have been filed within 90 days of the order i.e., from 2.3.2002. He also argued that the revision was filed in 2010 whereas it should have been filed within 90 days of the order i.e., from 2.3.2002. Learned Counsel also argued that after a due enquiry only his clients, the respondents were given certificates by the revenue authorities. His last submission in the alternative was that the sale deeds were executed within eight years of 26.12.1979 and that therefore, all the sale deeds are hit by Section 48(A) of the Tenancy Act and are void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act also. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the so-called sale deeds in favour of society members are not valid in law. 15. This Court, after a review of the facts and figures which were pointed out with due care by both the learned Counsel who took great pains to argue the matter, notices the following: (1) a plain language interpretation of Section 38-E of the Act shows that the ownership shall stand transferred or vest in the protected tenant from the notified date. The notified date as per the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 3 (Revenue) dated 1.1.1973 which is issued under Section 38-E of the Act is 1.1.1973; (2) The Act also framed Rules for transfer of ownership of the lands to the protected tenants, which are called the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 5 of the said Rules is to the following effect: "5. Issue of certificate:--(1) After the declaration of the final list under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, the Tribunal shall issue a certificate under sub-section (2) of Section 38-E in Form-II to every protected tenant included in the final list, declaring him to be the owner of the land specified against him in the final list and shall cause the necessary entries to be made in the relevant or other revenue accounts of the village." 16. The plain language reading of Section 38-E of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules clearly states that every protected tenant, who is issued a certificate under Rule 5 of the Rules, shall be the "owner" of the land. 17. The plain language reading of Section 38-E of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules clearly states that every protected tenant, who is issued a certificate under Rule 5 of the Rules, shall be the "owner" of the land. 17. The certificates which are filed in this case and which are issued in December, 1979 under Rule 5 clearly specify as follows: "It is hereby declared that the said tenant Sri ...............shall be deemed to be the owner of the said land with effect from 1st January, 1973 as against the land holder and all other persons having any interest therein." 18. In this view of the matter, it is clear that as per the Rules and the Act itself, the person whose name is mentioned in the certificate of December, 1979 is the owner. 19. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the certificate is not retrospective and is effective from the date of issue is also answered by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in Sada's case (supra), as follows: "42. It is argued that the certificate issued under Section 38-E(2) does not have retrospective effect from the date of notification under Section 38-E(1) and that it operates only from the date of issue of such certificate-This argument is also not correct. In our view, Section 38-E(1) merely states the time from which the Ownership Certificate will be conclusive evidence', namely, the date of certificate. It does not, in our view, refer to the time from which the declaration of ownership is operative. On the other hand Section 38-E(1) makes it clear that the transfer of ownership is immediately effective from the date of notification (i.e., 1.1.1973 in these cases). Once the Ownership Certificate is issued it clearly relates back to the date of notification. From the date of issue, it can be used as 'conclusive evidence' of ownership as against the landholders and persons claiming through him and other persons interested......." 20. The Full Bench of the A.P. High Court in Para 20 also noticed that G.O. Ms. No. 3 which was issued on 1.1.1973 specify the date 1.1.1973 as notified date. 21. From the date of issue, it can be used as 'conclusive evidence' of ownership as against the landholders and persons claiming through him and other persons interested......." 20. The Full Bench of the A.P. High Court in Para 20 also noticed that G.O. Ms. No. 3 which was issued on 1.1.1973 specify the date 1.1.1973 as notified date. 21. In view of the clear and categorical language used and also the clear pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the certificates issued in December, 1979 are conclusive evidence of the ownership of the protected tenants with effect from 1.1.1973. The Hon'ble Full Bench clearly held that once the certificate is issued, it relates back to the date of the notification namely 1.1.1973. This finding of the Hon'ble Full Bench also answers the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the sales were void as they were executed within eight (8) years of the certificate. In view of the deeming provision the certificates take effect from 1.1.1973 and as such the sale deeds executed are not void under Section 48-A. Even otherwise the said Section 48-A only gives a right to the Tahsildar to take over the land after paying adequate and proper compensation. It does not ipso facto invalidate the sale deed. 22. In view of both these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the certificates that were issued under Form-II, Rule 5(1) of the Rules and on 26.12.1979 in favour of the protected tenants who are the predecessors in interest of the members of the petitioner-society are conclusive evidence of their title. 23. This Court also notices that a common judgment was passed in number of suits including OS No. 584/99 and OS No. 201 of 1999, which is filed by the present revision petitioners relating to these lands. This suit ended in a decree dated 28.7.2004. The trial Court noted that the members have formed into one society called Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Society. After considering the oral and documentary evidence in this suit, the Court came to a conclusion that a perpetual injunction is to be granted to the plaintiffs (OS No. 201 of 1999). This matter was taken up in appeal in AS No. 272 of 2014 but against the orders in OS No. 584 of 1999. After considering the oral and documentary evidence in this suit, the Court came to a conclusion that a perpetual injunction is to be granted to the plaintiffs (OS No. 201 of 1999). This matter was taken up in appeal in AS No. 272 of 2014 but against the orders in OS No. 584 of 1999. The petitioners did not challenge the judgment and decree in OS No. 201 of 1999 and the appellate Court recognized this fact and proceeded to hear the appeal against OS No. 584 of 1999, which is filed by Talari Venkataiah and others. The appeal was also heard in detail as can be seen from the certified copy of the order. The appellate Court also considered the Full Bench decision in Sada's case (supra), and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. The appellate Court also noticed that the plaintiffs have not sought a declaration of cancellation of the GPAs etc., by virtue of which the property was alienated and that a suit for a bare injunction is filed. Against this appeal, SA No. 375 of 2016 was filed. The second appeal was also dismissed and thus, the judgment and decree granting a permanent injunction in OS No. 201 of 1999 has become final. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents conceded fairly with his usual candour, that the findings in OS No. 201 of 1999 are now binding. Thus it is clear that Courts of competent jurisdiction allowed the society to pursue the case for and on behalf of its members. The society is not claiming any independent title for itself but is merely espousing the cause of its individual members and is seeking a collective relief only for the members. This Court is also not precluded from investigating the facts in a revision as per settled law on the subject and in a case of this nature the investigation is not so complex as to relegate the parties to a civil Court. The essence of the case is the correctness of the actions of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 which can be decided on the basis of the available records only. 24. It is also noticed that one of the factors that persuaded the Joint Collector in passing the impugned order are the interlocutory orders in existence then in the three suits OS Nos. 584, 552 and 201 of 1999. 1 to 3 which can be decided on the basis of the available records only. 24. It is also noticed that one of the factors that persuaded the Joint Collector in passing the impugned order are the interlocutory orders in existence then in the three suits OS Nos. 584, 552 and 201 of 1999. These interlocutory applications or the orders passed do not have an independent existence as the final orders have been passed in the suits. Thus, a major rationale in the Joint Collectors order does not exist. In addition, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the revision was filed in 2010 challenging an order passed in 2002. This Court notices that the revision was initially presented with CRP(Sr) No. 83139 of 2002 in the year 2002 itself, but ultimately the case/revision was numbered as CRP No. 1368/2010. 25. In view of rule position in the Act and all of the above including the Full Bench Decision in the case of Sada's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that there is a finality that is attached to the certificates issued in December, 1979. These certificates are conclusive evidence of ownership against the land holders, person claiming through the land holders and the other persons interested. They also have a retrospective effect and relate back to the noticed date. The registered sale deeds (Pages 169-230); pahanies (231-266); building permissions (267-269); NALA tax receipts (270-280); Land regularisation approvals (281-353) prove the title and possession of the members of the applicant/petitioner-society. 26. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petitioners have made out a case for interference by this Court both on facts and in law. The subsequent actions of the respondent revenue officials are thus not correct or valid in law. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, dated 2.3.2002, which confirms the earlier order dated 26.4.2000 of the Revenue Divisional Officer is to be set aside. There are no merits in the said order dated 2.3.2002 and the same is accordingly set aside. 27. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. 28. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.