ORDER : (N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief : “to call for records relating to order in Appeal bearing No.D4/TA/4/89, dated 09.03.1992 of respondent No.1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore possession of land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to the petitioners.” 2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Smt.Durgamma was protected tenant of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.17-09 gts., in Sy.No.238 situated at Indervelli Village of Adilabad District. Accordingly ownership rights under Section 38-E of A.P.(T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were conferred on L.Rs of the said Durgamma i.e., Godala Pochiga vide proceedings of respondent No.2 in G/5915/74 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.1 in Appeal by order dated 29.05.1976. It appears that respondent No.4 has filed compromise memo before District Revenue Officer, Adilabad but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord Smt.Subba bai filed C.R.P.No.934/1976 before this Court which was dismissed on 14.09.1979. Petitioners’ further case is that by virtue of the said order, the ownership rights were confirmed on Mr.Gadala Pochiga and the matter has attained finality. 3. It is further submitted that though the ownership rights were conferred on the protected tenant, the said land was found to be in occupation of landlord Smt.Subba bai, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the said land lord under Rule (1) of Amended Act 2 of 1979 by the Tahsildar, Indervelli on 01.08.1980. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord has filed W.P.No.4266 of 1980 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 04.04.1986 dismissed the said writ petition and granted liberty to the land lord for raising all objections before Mandal Revenue Officer. After considering the objections raised by the land lord, the Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., respondent No.3 by order dated 12.05.1989 ordered eviction and directed to handover the possession to the L.R.s of Late Gadala Pochiga under Section 38-E(2) of Amended Act 2 of 1979. During the pendency of the proceedings, Gadala Pochiga died and his daughter Smt.Budi was brought on record. Accordingly, Smt.Budi was inducted into possession of the land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.17-09 gts., on 12.05.1989 in the presence of panchas and panchanama was recorded to that effect. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, Gadala Pochiga died and his daughter Smt.Budi was brought on record. Accordingly, Smt.Budi was inducted into possession of the land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.17-09 gts., on 12.05.1989 in the presence of panchas and panchanama was recorded to that effect. 4. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3 dated 12.05.1989, the land owner Smt.Subba bai and her son had filed an appeal before respondent No.1 on 22.05.1989 and simultaneously filed W.P.No.7088 of 1989 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 24.05.1989 in W.P.M.P.No.9276 of 1989 granted an order of interim stay. On 22.06.1989, an order of interim stay was also granted in the appeal filed before respondent No.1. Subsequently, the land owner had withdrawn the said Writ Petition in W.P.No.7088 of 1989 on 23.12.1991. Thereafter, the matter came up before respondent No.1 and the appellant and respondent therein agreed for compromise and in terms of the said compromise memo, the appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 09.03.1992. Questioning the said order the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 09.03.1992 seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to restore possession of land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to the petitioners. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they being legal heirs of Smt.Budi W/o.Rajanna, are in actual possession of the subject land in view of the possession handed over to Gadala Pochiga on 12.05.1989 itself. It is their further case that Smt.Budi during her lifetime has never informed the petitioners that she has compromised the matter with Mr.Ganpath Rao i.e., respondent No.4 and only during the month of July, 2011, when the said Ganpath Rao tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that the matter was compromised during the lifetime of petitioners’ mother viz., Smt.Budi. Thereafter, petitioners have verified the revenue records and came to know about the alleged compromise and applied for certified copies of the order of respondent No.1 on 18.04.2012 which were furnished on 26.06.2012. It is further submitted that the ownership rights under Section 38(E) of the Act conferred on the Gadala Pochiga became final and respondent No.1 ought to have verified the compromise stated to have been agreed by Smt.Budi as there is no mention of presence of Smt.Budi before respondent No.1 at the time of recording of the compromise. It is further submitted that the ownership rights under Section 38(E) of the Act conferred on the Gadala Pochiga became final and respondent No.1 ought to have verified the compromise stated to have been agreed by Smt.Budi as there is no mention of presence of Smt.Budi before respondent No.1 at the time of recording of the compromise. Therefore, the thumb impression of Smt.Budi might have been forged by respondent No.4. 6. Petitioners further case is that the compromise has been tampered by changing the extent of land allotted i.e., Ac.10-00 gts., to respondent No.4 and Ac.7-09 gts., to Smt.Budi which was originally typed as Ac.10-00 gts., to Smt.Budi and Ac.7-09 gts., to respondent No.4. Therefore, it is alleged that the compromise has been recorded by respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent No.1 and that the said compromise was brought into existence by playing fraud on the mother of the petitioners in collusion with respondent No.1 and it is not binding on the petitioners and the alleged compromise is liable to be set aside, as it is contrary to Section 38(E) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is further submitted though the alleged compromise has been recorded by respondent No.1 on 09.03.1992, however, the same has not been acted upon as the petitioners are in continuous possession. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Indervelli, Adilabad District by stating that Smt.Subba Bai w/o. Tukaram was the pattedar of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.17-09 gts., dry in Sy.No.238 at Indervelli-B village of Adilabad District and Smt.Durgamma was the protected tenant. It is further submitted that after issuing notices and conducting necessary enquiry and after issuance of provisional list as required under Rule 4(1) of A.P.(T.A.) Protected tenants (Transfer of Ownership of lands) Rules, 1973 and after publication of final list under Rule 4(3) of the above Rules, the ownership certificate of the said land was granted to Gadala Pochiga who is legal representative of Smt.Durgamma on 16.02.1975. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the pattadar Smt.Subba Bai before the Joint Collector, Adilabad was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.1979 and the Civil Revision Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 14.09.1977. 8. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the pattadar Smt.Subba Bai before the Joint Collector, Adilabad was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.1979 and the Civil Revision Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 14.09.1977. 8. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the said land was found to be in occupation of landlord viz., Smt.Subba Bai even after the ownership rights conferred on Gadala Pochiga have attained finality due to dismissal of appeal and writ petition filed by the landlord Smt.Subba Bai. Therefore, an eviction notice was issued by the Tahsildar, Utnoor under Rule 1 of the Amended Act 2 of 1979 in Reference No.B3/2514/80 dated 01.08.1980 to the landlord. Aggrieved by the said notice, the landlord filed W.P.No.4266 of 1980 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 14.04.1986 by giving liberty to the land owner to raise all objections including the one which she raised in the writ petition by submitting her explanation to show cause notice, within four weeks from the date of the order. After considering the explanation of the landlord, respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 12.05.1989 ordered eviction of landlord Smt.Subba Bai from the subject land and restoration of possession of the same from legal heirs of Gadala Pochiga under Section 38(2) of Act, 2 of 1979 and in compliance thereof the possession of the land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.17-09 gts., situated at Indervelli-B village was given to Smt.Durgamma L.R. of G.Pochiga on 12.05.1989 in the presence of panchas recording panchanama by the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Indervelli. 9. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.05.1989 of respondent No.3, the landlady Smt.Subba Bai and her son Ganpath Rao have filed an appeal before respondent No.1 on 22.05.1989 and the landlady also filed W.P.No.7088 of 1989 before this Court and this Court in W.P.M.P.No.9276 of 1989 in W.P.No.7088 of 1989 has granted an order of interim stay. Respondent No.1 also granted an interim stay by his order dated 22.06.1989 in Case No.D4/T4/4/89. Thereafter, the landlady had withdrawn the said W.P.No.7088 of 1989 on 23.12.1991. Respondent No.1 also granted an interim stay by his order dated 22.06.1989 in Case No.D4/T4/4/89. Thereafter, the landlady had withdrawn the said W.P.No.7088 of 1989 on 23.12.1991. It is further submitted that when the appeal was pending trial before respondent No.1, the landlady Smt.Subba Bai and original protected tenant Smt.Gadala Durgamma expired and their legal representatives Ganpath Rao S/o. Smt.Subba Bai and Smt.Budi D/o.Late Gadala Pochiga were brought on record and they have filed a compromise petition having settled the issue by sharing the subject land Ac.10-00 gts., in favour of Ganpath Rao and Ac.7-09 gts., in favour of Smt.Budi. It is further submitted that possession of land was given on 12.05.1989 itself under proper panchanama to Smt.Durgamma and her name was entered in pahani for the year 1990-91 as pattedar to the total extent of Ac.17-09 gts., and thus the order passed by respondent No.2 by issuing ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act were implemented and the name of Smt.Durgamma continued as pattedar till the year 2008-09. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 would submit that the version of the petitioners regarding the compromise memo filed before respondent No.1 on 31.01.1992 and its genuineness needs no consideration at this distant point of time. 10. It is further submitted that certificate issued under Section 38-E of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 shall be conclusive proof of the protected tenant becoming owner with effect from the date of ownership certificate issued and therefore, the name of the legal representative of protected tenant was implemented as pattadar in revenue records also. The compromise was recorded by respondent No.1 as agreed by both the parties and thereafter, the appeal was disposed of. It is also submitted that if at all Smt.Budi was not satisfied with the orders in appeal, she should have taken appropriate steps during her life time but the same has not been done in view of the amicable settlement between both the parties i.e., landlord and protected tenant to apportion the land amongst them. 11. It is also submitted that on verification of pahanies for the years 1992-93 to 2007-08, Smt.G.Durgamma w/o. Pochaiah is recorded as pattedar and cultivator of total extent of Ac.17-09 gts., Sy.No.238 of Indervelli-B Village. 11. It is also submitted that on verification of pahanies for the years 1992-93 to 2007-08, Smt.G.Durgamma w/o. Pochaiah is recorded as pattedar and cultivator of total extent of Ac.17-09 gts., Sy.No.238 of Indervelli-B Village. In the pahani 2008-09, extent of Ac.17-09 gts., (i)Ganpath Rao S/o.Tukaram (ii) Champath Rao S/o.Tukaram and (iii)Rajanna are recorded as cultivators to the extent of Ac.5-00 gts., Ac.5-00 gts., and Ac.7-09 gts., respectively. It is further submitted that petitioners have not availed any remedial measures as available to them under the relevant laws and resorted to file a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5 who is being impleaded and brought on record as legal heir of the deceased respondent No.4 as per order of this Court dated 23.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2017 and respondent Nos.7 and 8 are uncle and cousin brother of respondent No.5 herein. The averments made in counter affidavit of respondent No.3 were reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 13. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit. It is submitted that respondents has no authority to record compromise deed dated 31.01.1992 and the said compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. was tampered and at paragraph 4 of the said compromise, there is an overwriting. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 submits that unofficial respondents names were recorded in the revenue records and loans were also taken and that only two names of the petitioners are recorded and one of the petitioners’ name is not recorded anywhere in the revenue records and only parties to compromise must challenge the compromise deed dated 09.03.1992 and not the legal heirs. It is further submitted that a panchanama dated 01.02.1992 was conducted and recorded by respondent No.1. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the compromise was recorded in 1992, the same is not implemented in the revenue records till the year 2011-12 and also panchanama is a fabricated document and there is no signature of official respondents and as such the same cannot be looked into. 16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 adopts arguments of respondent No.5. 16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 adopts arguments of respondent No.5. It is further submitted that an extent of Ac.10-00 gts., was recorded in the name of respondent No.4 and an extent of Ac.7-09 gts was recorded in the name of Smt.Budi w/o. Rajanna in terms of the compromise recorded before the Joint Collector, Adilabad dated 09.03.1992. The said compromise dated 09.03.1992 is now challenged at a belated stage of 21 years. 17. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 18. In the order dated 09.03.1992, which is filed under Section 90 of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy Act, 1950, the Joint Collector, Adilabad recorded that a writ petition was filed by the appellants therein in W.P.No.7088 of 1999, however, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The case came up for final hearing on 31.01.1992 and the respective parties have filed compromise petition and have settled the issue. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 drawn attention of this Court to compromise deed filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C., dated 31.01.1992 and would particularly refer to paragraph 4 of the said compromise which reads as under: “4. That, out of Sy.No.238 of Indervelli (B), the respondent Budi agreed to part Ac.17-09 gts., in favour of Ganpath Rao and Ganpath Rao herein also agreed to take Ac.17-09 gts., from the above land acres parting Ac.7-09 gts., to Budi.” 19. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 draws attention of this Court to pattadar passbook issued in favour of respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 wherein respondent No.5 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at Sy.No.238/B; respondent No.7 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at Sy.No.238/A and respondent No.8 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at Sy.No.238/AA. It is also to be noted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 name was recorded in pahani for the year 2011-12 wherein Ac.3-24 gts., and Ac.3-25 gts., was allotted to each of the petitioners. At that point of time, petitioners have not taken any steps in questioning the same, however, are now claiming Ac.17-10 gts., in Sy.No.237. Petitioners all through did not question the compromise which was entered by their predecessor Smt.Budi and at this belated stage are questioning the compromise decree dated 09.03.1992. Even otherwise, if the compromise recorded was found faulty, the parties therein ought to have taken immediate steps in challenging the said compromise. 20. Petitioners all through did not question the compromise which was entered by their predecessor Smt.Budi and at this belated stage are questioning the compromise decree dated 09.03.1992. Even otherwise, if the compromise recorded was found faulty, the parties therein ought to have taken immediate steps in challenging the said compromise. 20. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compromise decree can only be challenged when the same was obtained on fraud basis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments also held that compromise decree can only be challenged before the concerned Court which passed the decree in an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. One such recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.439 of 2022 dated 09.02.2022 and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows: “13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed on 02.05.2019 in I.A. No. 108 of 2019 in O.S. No.537 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Trial Court dated 02.05.2019 in I.A. No.108 of 2019 in O.S. No. 537 of 2018 rejecting the plaint is hereby restored. However, it is observed that we have not expressed anything on merits on validity of the Compromise Decree and the same shall have to be decided and considered by the Court which passed the decree in an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, which as observed hereinabove has been filed by the original plaintiff and the said application be decided and disposed of by the concerned Court in accordance with law and on its own merits and the contentions/defences which may be available to the respective parties on the validity of the Compromise Decree are kept open to be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.” 21. It is also striking to note that petitioners have not filed any document in their favour in this writ petition and the submission made on behalf of petitioners are contrary to records and Court orders. As such the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. It is also striking to note that petitioners have not filed any document in their favour in this writ petition and the submission made on behalf of petitioners are contrary to records and Court orders. As such the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. More so, the compromise decree cannot be challenged at this belated stage after 21 years that too when the petitioners themselves are aware that their extent was recorded as Ac.3-24 gts., and Ac.3-25 gts., in the revenue records. 22. Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 09.03.1992 passed by respondent No.1 i.e., Joint Collector, Adilabad District. Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of merits, fails, and stands dismissed. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.