1. All the CRPs are filed against the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated 20-12-1996 exercising his jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ("the Tenancy Act' for brevity). The Joint Collector reversed the order of the Tenancy, Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division, Ranga Reddy District) dated 15-7-1992. In these revisions arising under Section 91 of the Tenancy Act, the petitioners' - land owners grievance is that the order of the appellate authority dated 20-12-1996 in proceedings No.B4/ 6506/92 is illegal and arbitrary.

2. The land in question originally belonged to one Raj Narayana Prasad who had two sons by name Hari Kishan Prasad and Prem Kishan Prasad, The petitioners in these CRPs are either the sons or daughters of late Hari Kishan Prasad. To appreciate the two important submissions made by the petitioners it is necessary to notice the legal position and relevant facts succinctly.

3. Under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the Government issued a notification for the purpose of conferring ownership rights on protected tenants. Therefore, the competent authority - the Revenue Divisional Officer - conducted an enquiry as required under Section 38-E(2) read with Rule 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 (hereafter called "the Tenancy Rules'). Be it noted that while notification issued under Section 38-E with effect from 1-1-1973 transfers and vests the right in agricultural land to the protected tenant, Section 38-E(2) and Rule 4 of the tenancy Rules contemplate an enquiry for the purpose of granting ownership certificate under Section 38-E (2) by the Tenancy Tribunal.

4. The Tenancy Tribunal after taking into consideration the tenancy record if available and after holding summary enquiry in respect of the lands allegedly held by protected tenants shall prepare a provisional list in Form-I showing the names of the protected tenants to whom the land is deemed to have been transferred under Section 38-E (see Rule 4(1). After preparation of the provisional list in Form-I, the Tenancy Tribunal shall issue notice inviting objections within 15 days from the date of publication by causing the provisional list affixed on the notice board of the village Chavidi or other conspicuous place in the village. The proceedings upto the publication of provisional list is the first stage. The second stage is as per Rule 4(3). The Tribunal after hearing the objections if any from a landlord, a land holder or a rival protected tenant or any other interested person and making further enquiry as is necessary may with or without modifications publish a final list which shall be affixed on the notice board of village Chavidi or other conspicuous place. The final list of protected tenants prepared and published under Rule 4(3) is the basis for issuing a certificate under Section 38-E(2) which is the conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of certificate. In this context it Is also necessary to mention that Section 2(a), 2(c), Section 5, Section 34 and Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act contain sufficient guidelines as to the nature of the enquiry at the stage of preparation of provisional list as well as the final list under Rule 4 of the tenancy Rules. The Tenancy Tribunal shall have to take into consideration the relevant factors as per the Tenancy Act while preparing the final list of protected tenants for the purpose of issuing of certificate under Section 38-E(2).

5. In the present case, the Tenancy Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein prepared a provisional list under Rule 4(1) and (2) and published the same on 10-1-1975. In the meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereafter called 'the Land Reforms Act') came into force with effect from 1-1-1975. The Act prohibits any person from holding agricultural land in excess of one standard holding as defined under Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act. As late Narayana Prasad, the grand father of the petitioners was owner of more than Ac.350-00 agricultural land in Medchal, Hari Kishan Prasad, father of petitioners filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal, which is distinct from the Tenancy Tribunal under the Tenancy Act initiated proceedings under Section 9 read with Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (hereafter referred as 'Land Reforms Rules'). Rule 4 of the Land Reforms Rules contemplates verification by Tahsildar and publication of the declaration made by the declarant.

6. While the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal were pending, the Tenancy Tribunal published the final list under Rule 4(3) of the Tenancy Rules on 15-6-1975 containing names of protected tenants who are in possession of land. These protected tenants are respondents in these CRPs. Against this order publishing final list under Rule 4(3) of Tenancy Rules, Hari Kishan Prasad, the father of the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer in No.B1/9811/75.

7. In the meanwhile, after causing verification as required under Rule 4 of the Land Reforms Rules, the Land Reforms Tribunal by order dated 20-10-1976 determined the total extent of holding for the purpose of Land Reforms Act. Before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Raj Hari Kishan Prasad allegedly gave a statement stating that he has no objection for grant of pattas to the protected tenants under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act except to two tenants. The total extent of the land in as many as 16 distinct survey numbers came to Acs. 174-09. As late Hari Kishan Prasad objected to granting pattas in respect of land covered by Sy.Nos.858 and 859 in favour of Jeedimarla Eraiah and Kaiki Lingaiah admeasuring an extent of Acs.23-13, upholding such objection, the Land Reforms Tribunal determined Acs. 150-96 as being in the holding of protected tenants and also observed that in respect of the land in the survey numbers mentioned, pattas were granted to protected tenants under Section 38-E(2). After deleting Acs.150-96 which was found to be in the possession of protected tenants, the Land Reforms Tribunal, apportioned Ac. 102-35 cents each equal to 2.0595 standard holdings to two sons of late Narayana Prasad, and having regard to the two major sons of Hari Kishan Prasad concluded that the land in the holding of Hari Kishan Prasad is not in excess of ceiling area as on 1-1-1975. This order has become final and no material is placed either before the Tenancy Tribunal or Tenancy Appellate Authority to show that any appeal was filed against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 20-10-1976 under Section 20 of the Land Reforms Act. Be it noted that if the land in possession of protected tenants is not excluded Hari Kishan Prasad would be holding in excess of the ceiling area.

8. As already noticed feeling aggrieved by the final list prepared under Section 4(3) of the Tenancy Rules, Hari Kishan Prasad preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer. The said appeal was allowed accepting the contention of Hari Kishan Prasad that though he filed objections at the first stage under Rule 4(1) of the Tenancy Rules, the same was rejected on technical grounds. The District Revenue Officer in effect allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal. The said order of the District Revenue Officer dated 21-1-1997 in B1/9811/75 reads as under:

This is a revision petition filed against the endorsement of the Asst. Collector. The revision petitioner contends that in pursuance of a notice under Section 38, he had filed objection petition but the same was rejected by the Asst. Collector on technical grounds. The learned Counsel for the respondents has said that although a notice was given, the applicant failed to file the objection within time. It is seen that 38-E Certificate is not granted to the tenants so far. There is nothing wrong if the objection petition is considered and disposed on merits. The matter is accordingly remanded.

9. After remand the Tenancy Tribunal conducted further enquiry and by order dated 22-1-1982 directed for issue of certificates under Section 38-E. Again the petitioners filed appeal before the Joint Collector who by order dated 26-12-1989 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer directing to re-verify the certificates granted to the respondents-protected tenants. Against the order of the Joint Collector the protected tenants filed revision under Section 91 of the Tenancy Act being CRP 593 of 1990. This Court while dismissing the CRP by order dated 6-11-1990 observed that the RDO, Hyderabad East Division, be directed to proceed with the enquiry without any reference to any observation or finding by the Joint Collector in disposing of the appeal. The effect of the order is that the order of the Joint Collector dated 26-12-1989 was set at naught. After remand, the matter went before the 2nd respondent 'Tenancy Tribunal

who by order dated 15-7-1992 accepted the contentions of the owners that the protected tenants are not in possession of the land and that the land being 'Kancha' (grazing) land, the protected tenants are not entitled for pattas. It was also contended before the 2nd respondent that no certificate under Section 38-E of the Act can be granted to the protected tenants as land owners do not hold any land in excess of six family holdings as on 1-1-1973

10. The matter again went before the 1st respondent - appellate authority who by the impugned order in No.B4/5 634/92, B4/ 5636/92, B4/5638/92, B4/5349/92, B4/6506/ 92, B4/6512/92 and B4/6513/92 dated 20-12-1996 allowed the appeal of the protected tenants confirming the ownership rights under Section 38-E on the respondents

- protected tenants.

11. The appellate authority framed two points for consideration to the effect whether the persons claiming to be entitled to certificates under Section 38-E are protected tenants within the scope of Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act and whether the Tenancy Tribunal is competent to determine the permissible holding of agricultural lands. Placing reliance on the final list prepared under Rule 4(3) of the Tenancy Rules, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the respondents are protected tenants entitled to ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The objection on behalf of the owners that in the absence of tenancy record/tenancy register; the persons in possession of the land cannot claim any protected tenancy was rejected by the Joint Collector. On the second point for consideration, the Joint Collector relying on the final determination under Section 9 of the Land Reforms Act in its proceedings dated 20-10-1976 came to a conclusion that it is the only Land Reforms Tribunal that is competent to determine the holding of the declarant and the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the share or holdings of the family members of the declarant.

12. Sri N.V. Ranganadham, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that the land in question being 'Kancha" land as per the revenue records is not covered by the provisions of the tenancy act and that no certificate in respect of the land which is not agricultural land or a land fit to be used as agricultural land can be given under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Secondly he submits that there was no evidence at all to show that the persons claiming to be protected tenants were in possession nor it can be considered that those persons are deemed to be in possession. Adverting to the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act and as in alternative argument the learned senior Counsel submits that the determination made by the Land Reforms Tribunal insofar as the land owner is concerned is not final and even at the stage of granting certificate under Section 38-E(2) of the Tenancy Act, the land owner can still object the grant of ownership certificate taking all defences as are available under the Tenancy Act.

13. Sri P.M. Gopal Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents (protected tenants) in CRP Nos.9, 34, 1036, 3408 and 1163 of 1997 submits that the Land Reforms Act is given an overriding effect and therefore even in respect of the land in possession of the protected tenants, the land Reforms Tribunal is bound to recognise the protected tenants and determine the land to be deleted or excluded from the holding of the land owner. Having filed a statement before the Land Reforms Tribunal that he has no objection for granting ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, Hari Kishan Prasad or his successors in title cannot go back and dispute the right and entitlement of the protected tenants for ownership certificate. According to the learned Counsel the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal operate both as res judicata as well as 'estoppel by record'. Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy learned Counsel appearing for protected tenants in CRP Nos.35 and 2386 of 1997 adopts the arguments of Sri P.M. Gopal Rao.

14. With the assistance of the learned Counsel I have gone through the entire material placed before this Court in relation to the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal as well as the appellate authority. Having regard to the contentions and material, the two points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Insofar as the rights of the protected tenants for ownership certificate under Section 38-E is concerned whether the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal under Section 9 of the Land Reforms Act is final?

(2) If the answer to point No.(1) is in the affirmative, whether at the stage of grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E(2) of the Tenancy Act by the Tenancy Tribunal to the protected tenant, the land owner is entitled for a notice or to be heard by the Tenancy Tribunal?

15. Before dealing with points that arise for consideration, it is necessary to notice the settled legal position that the power under Section 91 of the Tenancy Act is very limited and it is not within the scope of revision power of this Court to re-appreciate or reappraise the evidence or facts placed before the original as well as the appellate fact finding authorities. Insofar as the finding of facts are concerned ordinarily, finality is attached. Only in the event of errors in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities under the Tenancy Act the revision power is exercisable. Section 91 to a large extent is in pari materia with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., , the Supreme Court reiterated the scope of jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and held that while exercising revision power this Court has no competence or jurisdiction to interfere with all sorts of errors that may have crept in the exercise of jurisdiction by the fact finding authorities.

In Re Points 1 and 2:

16. The Land Reforms Act is an enactment for giving effect to the policy of the State to secure the objectives specified in Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India to reduce the inequalities and attain equality in the enjoyment of material resources of the community. Section 28 of the Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of Land Reforms Act over other laws for the time being in force. It cannot be denied that by the notified date (1-1-1975) of the Land Reforms Act, the Tenancy Act, which came into force with effect from 11-6-1950, was in force. Therefore, without any debate, the provisions of Land Reforms Act override any provision in the Tenaney Act notwithstanding any inconsistency within the two Acts.

17. The Land Reforms Tribunal has to determine whether or not the holding of land owner is in excess of ceiling area in accordance with Sections 3(c), (b), 4, 4(a) and 5 of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal is competent to exclude and delete the land from the holding of a declarant as is permissible under Section 7 of the Land Reforms Act. There are general provisions as to what are the extents to be excluded from the holding of the declarant in the Land Reforms Act. However, insofar as the land in possession of the protected tenants in Telangana area is concerned, the Legislature has taken sufficient care to deal with this aspect by providing special provisions for protected tenants under section 13 of this act. It is necessary to extract Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act.

"13. Special Provisions for protected tenant:--(1) Where the holding of any owner includes any land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal shall in the first instance, determine whether such land or part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenant under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950), and if so, the extent of land so transferred; and such extent of land shall thereupon be excluded from the holding of such owner and included in the holding of such tenant, as if the tenant, was the owner of such land for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1), the relevant provisions of the Act aforesaid shall apply in the matter of purchase of such land by such protected tenant".

Rule 3 of the Land Reforms Rules require a declaration under Section 8 and Section 18 (deals with future acquisitions) to be filed in Form No.1. Form No.1 contains declaration to be signed by the declarant that he has furnished all the particulars in enclosures I to VI. Enclosure-II requires the declarant to furnish details of land owned by all others including mortgages and tenants. Enclosure-IV requires the declarant to give details of all the lands included in Enclosures-I to III where there are encumbrances. After declaration is filed, the Tribunal shall send a copy of the declaration to the Officer authorised by the Government i.e., Special Tahsildar for verification. The Special Tahsildar is required to cause inspection or verification to be made and submit a report as to the correctness of the statements made in the declaration and the information as would be useful to the Tribunal for arriving at a correct determination of the ceiling area. The report submitted by the Special Tahsildar as required under Rules 4 and 5 of the Land Reforms Rules, though not binding on Land Reforms Tribunal is of crucial importance in determination of the ceiling area.

18. Further, a plain reading of Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act shows that where holding of any declarant includes the land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal is under obligation, in the first instance, to determine whether such land stands transferred to the protected tenant under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act and then to exclude the land which stood transferred to the protected tenant from the holding of the declarant. The Tribunal thereafter "shall" include such land in the holding of the tenant treating the tenant as owner of such land for the purpose of the Land Reforms Act. Having regard to the emphatic language in which Section 13 is couched, a question of pertinence would be whether non-issue of certificate under Section 38-E can excuse the Tribunal from determining the holding of the tenant as owner of the land?

19. This Court in Gade Suresh v. Government of A.P. Rep. By Land Reforms Tribunal, Asifabad, 1977 (1) APLJ 112, considered the question and held that:

The issue of a certificate under Section 38-E sub-section (2) arises only after the Tribunal determines the extent of the land in respect of which the ownership rights stand transferred to the protected tenant. The non-issue of a certificate under Section 38-E (2) does not postpone or prevent the operation of Section 38-E sub-section (1) under which the ownership rights statutorily stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants in respect of the lands held by them as protected tenants subject to the conditions laid down in Section 38(7)".

20. The above view was accepted by Justice Madhava Reddy (as he then was) in P. Jagadishwaraiah v. State of A.P., 1978(1) APLJ 160 and Geeta Tirupathi Reddy v. State of A.P., . This legal position is not disputed by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners. In a case where the land of a declarant under the Land Reforms Act, is in possession of a protected tenant, the first step is determination for the purpose of excluding the land under protected tenancy from the ceiling area of the declarant. The grant of certificate under Section 38-E(2) is a formal consequential administrative act. Indeed at the time of grant of certificate under Section 38-E(2), no further enquiry is contemplated apart from the enquiry under Rule 4. This is made clear by Rule 5 of Tenancy Rules which says that after the declaration of the final list under Rule 4(3), the Tribunal shall issue certificate under Section 38-E(2) in Form-I to every protected tenant included in the final list. In this case admittedly land owners filed objections at the stage of enquiry under Rule 4 of the tenancy Rules and they were duly considered. Hence at the time of issuing a certificate under Section 38-E(2), no further enquiry is required and therefore no notice is required.

21. To sum up the effect of the determination under Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act vis-a-vis the rights of protected tenants as held by the Court in Gade Suresh case (supra), issue of certificate under Section 38-E(2) arises only after the Land Reforms Tribunal determines the land which is to be excluded from the holding of the declarant (owner). When once such determination has become final, what remains to be done by the Tenancy Tribunal is the issue of certificate under Section 38-E(2) of the Tenancy Act read with Rule 5 of the Tenancy Rules. In this case, as the enquiry under Rule 4 of the tenancy Rules started prior to the owners filing declarations, that may be an added factor to enable the Tenancy Tribunal to issue certificate under Section 38-E(2). At the stage of issue of certificate, it is reasonable to conclude, the landlords/land owners who filed declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal are not entitled to object for issue of certificate to anybody.

22. Coming to the case on hand, a reading of the order dated 20-10-1976 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal shows that it deleted/excluded an extent of Ac, 150-96 from the holding of Hari Kishan Prasad, the father of the petitioners on the strength of the statement made by the declarant that an extent of Ac. 174-09 is in possession of the tenants and that he has no objection for grant of pattas to protected tenants under Section 38-E except for two persons. The said order having become final, the father of the petitioners or the petitioners claiming through him are not entitled to go back and contest the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal. In fact, in a case where the Land Reforms Tribunal determined the holding of a declarant by giving the benefit of exclusion/deletion of the land in possession of the protected tenants, there would be no necessity again to conduct enquiry either under Rule 4(1) or Rule 4(3) of the Tenancy Rules for preparation of final list of the protected tenants. In such a case, the Tenancy Tribunal can even straight away issue certificates to the protected tenants under Section 38-E (2) of the Tenancy Act.

23. Sri P.M. Gopal Rao, learned Counsel for the protected tenants submits that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal and that the petitioners are estopped from taking a stand contrary to the stand taken by their predecessor-in-title before the Land Reforms Tribunal. That the doctrine of res judicata applies to proceedings under Land Reforms Legislation and the doctrine of estoppel applied to the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal is well settled legal position (see V.S Charati v. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar (Dead) By Lrs.., ). Therefore, it is not necessary to elaborately deal with the case law touching upon the subject.

24. It is, however, necessary to refer to Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil, , in which the effect of proceedings under the Land Reforms Legislation and the proceedings under the Tenancy Act was considered by the Supreme Court. In that case the appellant was a tenant claiming rights under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. His application under Section 32-G of the said Act before the Tenancy Tribunal praying to determine the price to be paid to the land owners for the purchase of Ac.8-26 guntas was rejected on the ground that the tenant was already holding land in excess of ceiling limit. The order of the Tenancy Tribunal was reversed by the Bombay High Court. Before the Supreme Court, there was a claim on behalf of the minor son of the tenant to an extent of Ac.7-34 guntas and the claim of the tenant's brother in whose favour there was an alleged partition under which the brother was given the same land. Reliance was placed on the statement made by the land owner before the Tenancy Tribunal as well as the documentary evidence in support of partition. The Supreme Court accepted the oral evidence of the land owner before the Tenancy Tribunal as conclusive and held that if the land which fell to the share of the brother of the tenant is excluded, the latter would be within the ceiling area entitled to purchase the land from the land owners as claimed. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court was confirmed. The facts before the Supreme Court in that case disclose that the statement made by the land owner before the Tenancy Tribunal should be given due weight while determining the rival rights of the owner and the tenant.

25. Applying the principle in Digambar Adhar case (supra) it be almost held that the Land Reforms tribunal while determining the holding of late Hari Kishan Prasad relied on the factum of an extent of Acs. 150-96 being in possession of the protected tenants and to that extent gave benefit to the declarant. A declarant who makes a statement and gets benefit out of such statement in getting excluded that land from his holding would not be permitted to turn around at a later stage; in this case at the stage of issue of ownership certificate to the protected tenant to resile from the statement made before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The same would amount to fraud on public administration.

26. In Palaniappa Chettiar v. Arunasalam Chettiar, 1962 AC 294, the Privy Council considered the effect of 'deceit and fraud' on public administration on the claims made by a person. In the said case the facts are these. Malaya Rubber Regulations, 1934 provided that holdings of rubber growing land of more than Acs. 100-00 be assessed by an Assessment Committee whereas the holding of less than Acs. 100-00 be assessed by local District Officer. Arunasalam Chettair, who owned Acs. 139 of rubber growing land, transferred Acs.40-00 of land to his son, Palaniappa Chettiar for a purported consideration which was not in fact paid. This was done to get over the Rubber Regulations and to be assessed by local District Officers. The transfer was duly registered and certificate of title was issued to son. Thereafter, father, having agreed to sell Acs.40-00 to a third party, asked his son to execute a Power of Attorney so as to enable him to transfer the land to the prospective purchaser. The son refused to do so and the father brought an action before the High Court of the Federation for a declaration that the son is holding Acs.40.00 rubber land in trust for him. The learned Trial Judge upheld the claim of the father and held that son was holding the land on trust for his father. The Court of Appeal of the Federation dismissed son's appeal. Before the Privy Council it was contended that the father had practised a deceit on public administration in order to avoid the procedure for assessment as laid down by the legislation and therefore he is not entitled for declaration because the father resorted to colourable device by "which he gave right, title and interest in the property for the purpose of enabling the father to avoid statutory obligation under the Rubber Regulations. This was accepted by the Privy Council and Lord Denning speaking for unanimous Judicial Committee held as under:

That he made the transfer for a fraudulent purpose, namely, to deceive the public administration into thinking that he only held 99 acres of land and his son 40 acres, whereas in truth he himself meant to hold the whole 139 acres. Once this disclosure was made by the father, the Courts were bound to take notice of it, even though the son had not pleaded it......But where the fraudulent purpose has actually been effected by means of the colourable transfer, there is no room for repentance. The father has used the transfer to achieve his deceitful end and cannot go back on it. He cannot use the process of the Courts to get the best of both worlds - to achieve his fraudulent purpose and also to get his properly back. The Courts will say: 'Let the estate lie where it falls'.....

27. Having given a statement before the Land Reforms Tribunal that about 150 acres of land is in possession of protected tenants, who are entitled to ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the petitioners' father or the petitioners cannot turn around before the Tenancy Tribunal and object issue of ownership certificates to the protected tenants. Obviously Raj Hari Kishan Prasad played deceit on public authorities (Land Reforms Tribunal) and he cannot be heard to say at a later point of time that the tenants are not entitled to ownership certificates under the Tenancy Act.

28. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made his arguments on 30-1-2001 and 13-2-2001. The learned senior Counsel on instructions made a submission that the alleged protected tenants filed statements before the Tenancy Tribunal to the effect that they are not protected tenants and that late Hari Kishan Prasad filed statement before the Special Tahsildar at the time of enquiry under Rule 5 of the Land Reforms Rules denying the rights of any alleged protected tenants. This Court gave time to the petitioners to file additional affidavit much in advance so that the learned Counsel for the respondents can file their counters to those allegations. Today, when the case commenced to enable Sri P.M. Gopal Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, to sum up his submissions, the petitioners' Counsel placed copies of the alleged affidavit and alleged statements along with an affidavit across the Bar. Having regard to the legal submissions made and determined by this Court as well as the fact that at the stage of revision the petitioners have chosen to come forward to present these documents, this Court refused permission to the petitioners' Counsel to file the affidavit. Likewise, though Mr. P.M. Gopal Rao submits that the petitioners illegally sold away all the Ac.350-00 of land, which was originally owned by late Raj Narayana Prasad, for the same reasons, this Court refused permission to the parties to bring all these circumstances on record.

29. For the reasons recorded under points 1 and 2, all the CRPs fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.