Telangana High Court
K. Ratnam And 3 Others vs D. Papaiah Died Per Lrs., And 4 Others on 22 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CRP.NO.369 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 91 of A.P. Telangana Area Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (for short 'Act 21 of 1950') assailing the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.F2/711/2007 dated 11-04-2011. The petitioners herein are respondents in the above said case, where under, the appeal preferred by the present respondents under Section 90 of Tenancy Act, 1950, has been allowed and the order obtained by the petitioners herein in File No.D/6087/1997 dated 15-05-1999 was set aside.
2. As could be seen from the averments made in the present revision petition and grounds on which the petitioners sought for setting aside the impugned order, it seems the petitioners herein have filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, under Section 40 of Tenancy Act, seeking succession of Protected Tenany Rights in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3-31 gts in Sy.No.426 of Budwel 2 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. The petitioners have claimed before the MRO, Rajendranagar that they are legal heirs and successors of one Karameni Achiga alias Achaiah who was protected tenant of the above referred land in Sy.No.426, he has cultivated the land by paying lease amount to the landlord, his name was entered in the Revenue Records as a cultivator. The said Achaiah expired by leaving the petitioners herein as successors to succeed his tenancy rights over the said property and sought for succession of protected tenancy rights in their favour.
3. The MRO vide his order dated 15-05-1999, ordered succession of protected tenancy rights of said Achaiah in favour of the petitioners herein. As per the order referred above, the MRO, Rajendranagar has stated that before passing the said order he has issued notice to all the concerned and one Sri D.Papaiah, who is shown as 1st respondent in the present revision, filed an objection petition on the ground that he purchased Ac.3-31 gts of land in Sy.No.426 from the original pattedar, got mutation in his favour and his name is mentioned in the possession column of the Revenue Records and raised an objection for granting 3 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 succession in favour of the petitioners. However, as already stated MRO passed an order on 15-05-1999 granting succession in favour of the petitioners.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents No.1 to 5 filed an appeal under Section 90 of Act 21 of 1950 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, which was taken on file as Case No.F2/711/2007, and sought for setting aside the order of MRO dated 15-05-1999. The petitioners herein have opposed the said appeal. The Joint Collector after hearing the parties, and having appreciated the rival contentions of both parties, passed impugned order holding that the recognition of rights of succession will not be amenable to a summary enquiry conducted by the Revenue Authorities. If succession is sought after a long time from the date of demise of the right holder, it is beyond the competence of the Revenue Authorities to take such cognizance of an application. The rights of parties with regard to succession has to be adjudicated by a Civil Court and as such, the petitioners herein have no locus standi to claim such right, thereby, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of MRO.
4 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed the present revision petition claiming that the appeal filed by respondents herein could not have been allowed by the Joint Collector in view of delay of more than two years. The petitioners have claimed that the MRO rightly declared the petitioners herein as legal heirs and successors of original protected tenant. The Joint Collector ought to have seen that the MRO is the only competent authority to grant succession of Protected Tenancy Rights, as there is a bar on Civil Court touching the subject of Protected Tenancy. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, contrary to law.
6. The petitioners have also claimed that Joint Collector ought to have seen that Section 99 of Tenancy Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as such, the order of the Joint Collector is illegal. The petitioners have claimed that Joint Collector utterly failed to decide the issue of limitation point which was raised by the petitioners herein in their written arguments. The Joint Collector entered the names of respondents without following and without looking into the Rules and Procedure prescribed under ROR Act 1971, and Rules there under. The petitioners have also claimed in 5 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 the Revision Petition that the MRO, who is the competent authority, failed to give reasons in entering the names of persons in the revenue records and ought to have seen that the respondents are not the owners of the land. Therefore, the order of Joint Collector is contrary to the provisions of the Act. He ought to have dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents, since the same was barred by limitation. They have also claimed that this Court already held that MRO/Tahsildar is empowered to grant succession under Section 40 of A.P. Tenancy Act, thereby, sought for setting aside the impugned order.
7. Heard both parties.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the order dated 15-05-1999, the MRO, Rajendranagar having verified the relevant records and having found the Protected Tenancy Rights of K. Achiga alias Achaiah in respect of the above referred land, and having considered the objections raised by the present respondents, rightly passed an order granting succession in favour of the petitioners herein. The respondents having kept quiet for more than two years filed the above referred appeal before 6 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 the Joint Collector without any proper explanation for filing the appeal with such a huge delay. But the Joint Collector without considering the aspect of delay and without proper appreciation of other issues, passed the impugned order. He has also argued that the successors of the landlord who were impleaded in the present revision have admitted the Protected Tenancy Rights of Achaiah. As per the order dated 15-05-1999 and as per the impugned order, it is quite clear that the respondents who have got knowledge about the order of MRO ought to have filed appeal within the time prescribed by the law, but there was delay of more than two years which was not properly considered by the Joint Collector while disposing the appeal. He has also claimed that there is a categorical finding by the Joint Collector that the name of said Achaiah is shown as protected tenant in the relevant registers. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succession, as such, Joint Collector ought not to have set aside the order of MRO dated 15-05-1999.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 has submitted that the above referred land in Sy.No.426 of Budwel was owned by one 7 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 Amene Begum and after her death Abdul Rasheed was the owner and possessor of the land. The owners used to cultivate the land personally and there was no lease as claimed by the revision petitioners. He has also argued that these respondents have purchased this land in 1961, got their names mutated in the revenue records, and they are in possession and occupation of the property under personal cultivation. They have obtained Patta and other proceedings from Mandal Revenue Officer. He has also argued that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order vide G.O.M.S.No.411 MA dated 27-09-1975 and declared Budwel Village as an urban area in exercise of powers under Section 2(o) of A.P. Urban Areas (Development Act), 1975. The G.O. was published in A.P. Extraordinary Gazette Notification No.93 dated 01-10-1975. Therefore, in view of the declaration of Budwel as Urban Area, Act 21 of 1950 has no application in terms of Section 102(E) from the date of notification.
10. The learned counsel has also argued that in view of the settled legal proposition, MRO has no right to grant succession rights to the alleged successors of a protected tenant. They have to approach competent Civil Court to 8 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 obtain an order of succession in their favour. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for in the present revision, as such the Joint Collector rightly allowed their appeal, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present Civil Revision Petition.
11. The learned counsel for the impleaded respondents i.e., respondents No.6 and 7 has argued that the respondents No.1 to 5 could not prove the purchase of property from the original owner, thereby, they cannot claim title or possession over the property. He has also argued that the record placed before the Court indicates that sale deed sought to be relied on by respondents No.1 to 5 in support of the alleged purchase said to have been executed subsequent to the death of Amene Begum. Therefore, it is very clear that it was a false/fake document and it cannot convey any title in favour of the respondents No.1 to 5. Therefore, contended that the respondents are not entitled to any relief.
12. In view of the grounds on which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed and based on the arguments of the counsels for petitioners as well as the respondents, the point that would emerge for decision in the present revision is:
9 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
1. Whether the petitioners are successors of a protected tenant of the property to an extent of Ac.3-31 gts in Sy.No.426 of Budwel?
2. Whether the Tenancy Act, i.e., Act 21 of 1950 has no application to the above said property?
3. Whether the MRO, Rajendranagar before whom the petitioners have filed an application under Section 40 of Act 21 of 1950 had no authority to pass orders granting succession in their favour?
4. Whether the plea of petitioners that they are entitled to succession and whether the impugned order passed by Collector could not have been passed in view of the same being barred by limitation?
13. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners questioning the order of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, where under, he has set aside the order of MRO, Rajendranagar, granting succession of protected tenancy rights in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have to prove that the said Achiga alias Achaiah was the protected tenant, they are successors of the original protected tenant, their applications for grant of succession rights was within a reasonable time and MRO, Rajendranagar was competent to grant succession rights. They cannot depend on the weaknesses if any in the case of respondents. Even if respondents No.1 to 5 were not able to prove that they have 10 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 purchased the property from the original owner, still the petitioners have to prove that they are entitled to get the succession rights of protected tenancy of the alleged protected tenant. As per the proceedings of MRO, Rajendranagar and as per the impugned order placed before this Court, it is clear that the respondents No.1 to 5 have claimed that they purchased the property in question, way back in 1961 and obtained mutation proceedings, they are continued to be shown as possessors of the property.
14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein have filed an application before the MRO, Rajendranagar on 28-09-1996. According to the order passed by MRO, Rajendranagar, it reflects that said Achiga alias Achaiah was shown as protected tenant in respect of Sy.No.426 and while passing the order, MRO made an observation as if, he conducted enquiry and came to know that protected tenant Achiga died in 1978 by leaving his four sons, i.e. the petitioners herein, as his legal heirs to succeed the Protected Tenancy Rights. The MRO did not consider the objection raised by the 1st respondent on the ground that he did not file any evidence to show that there is no protected tenancy over 11 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 the land and as there is no material to dispute the protected tenancy and the same was terminated under the provisions of law, the so called protected tenancy rights remain continue and thereby, passed an order without considering the objections raised by the1st respondent. There is nothing in the order of MRO, dated 15-05-1995, as to what was the source for coming to the said conclusion and as to what enquiry he has conducted and as to whether he is competent to pass an order granting succession rights.
15. When the respondents No.1 to 5 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, a notice was ordered to the present petitioners, who have appeared before the Joint Collector and filed their written submissions. The Joint Collector by allowing the appeal under the impugned order held that in view of Section 40 of Act 21 of 1950, even though the petitioners are able to prove that they are legal heirs of protected tenant, who died in 1978, since the name of the original protected tenant is not mentioned in the subsequent Pahanies from 1955, as such, it is evident that the protected tenancy was not subsisted either before or after the demise of original protected tenant. Therefore, the question of petitioners 12 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 obtaining succession of the tenancy which was terminated long back, does not arise. The learned Joint Collector while allowing the appeal also observed that Section 40 does not prescribe any time limit, but such an application could have been filed in a reasonable time, but there was delay of more than 40 years, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief. He has also made an observation that since the succession is sought after a long time after the demise of the protected tenant, the Revenue Authorities cannot take cognizance of such application for succession. The grant of succession has to be done by the Civil Court but not by the Revenue Authorities.
16. The record further shows that when the present Civil Revision Petition is pending before the Court, the Revenue Authorities were directed to submit all the relevant records and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy informed this Court that the original Protected Tenancy Register is in a tattered condition and an authenticated certified copy of final tenancy register was placed before this Court. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, the name of said Achiga is not appearing in the register. The 13 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 petitioners did not file protected tenancy certificate or any lease deed in support of their claim. The petitioners have filed the certificate said to have been obtained invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act. But the petitioners are not able to prove the authenticity of the said certificate by examining any Authorities.
17. The respondents 1 to 5 have claimed that the description of the land in the said certificate is different from the Revenue Record produced by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy. As could be seen from the record, except their application claiming the alleged protected tenancy in favour of Achaiah during the life time of Achiga, nothing is proved to show that said Achaiah was enjoying the protected tenancy rights till his death. The petitioners could not place any material to show that the said Achaiah was cultivating the land till his demise. On the other hand, the record produced by the parties indicates that the application filed by the petitioners seeking succession rights was about more than 30 years after the purchase of the property by the first respondent and much later to the date of death of Achaiah.
14 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
18. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 placed relevant record in support of his claim that Budwel where the properties admittedly located, is declared as Urban Area, thereby, Act, 21 of 1950 has no application.
19. In support of the claim, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to rely on Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in 'Vorla Ramachandra Reddy and Another Vs. Joint Collector' 1, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court made an observation that "the agricultural lands in Ranga Reddy District and surrounding areas has drastically changed to rapid urbanization for the past over three decades and many agricultural lands have been converted into residential and commercial plots. Several areas of Ranga Reddy Districts have been merged into Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the plans have been prepared from time to time for regulating Urban development in the Ranga Reddy District. In such a scenario, the Authorities are expected to exercise reasonable care and caution while enquiring the belated claims of the tenancy rights in respect of the lands".
1 2021 SCC Online TS 703 15 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
20. Even though the petitioners disputed the contentions with regard to the above referred Government Order, they cannot deny that the entire land in Budwel was already merged in the Urban area of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation". There is no agriculture as such in the above referred survey number. Therefore, the MRO, Rajendranagar who has disposed the application in 1999 could have considered whether the petitioner's contention for succession rights of alleged protected tenancy can be entertained.
21. The respondents have also placed reliance on another Judgment between 'Roshan Ali Khan and others Vs. Raja Kishandas and Others' 2 wherein, it was observed that lands included in the Notification including the City area, it will be sufficient that the lands are not attracted the provisions of Tenancy Act as set out in Section 102 (E) of Act 21 of 1950. Even on these ground, the MRO, Rajendranagar could not have entertained the application filed by the petitioners.
2 1968 (2) ALT 66 16 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
22. The next ground on which the respondents No.1 to 5 sought for dismissal of the revision is the competency of MRO in granting succession of Protected Tenancy Rights. In order to claim that the MRO has no right to entertain an application under Section 40, particularly for granting succession rights, the petitioners sought to rely on judgment between 'B.Mallareddy and others Vs. State of Telangana' Represented by its Principal Secretary and Others' 3, wherein a reference was made about an unreported judgment of this High Court in WP.No.7430 of 2000 and WP.No.7018 of 2000. In these Judgments, this Court held that the question as to who are the legal heirs of a deceased protected tenant has to be decided by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. While referring the said Judgments and after considering the contentions raised by the parties to the Writ Petition, this Court has held that until and unless the Civil Court grant the declaration holding that the petitioners are entitled to succeed the tenancy rights on land hitherto standing in the name of protected tenant, they cannot go to the next stage. Even if it is believed that the contention 3 2021 SCC Online TS 895 17 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 raised by the petitioners in the above Writ is true and Section 38 (E) certificates were not issued and lands in issue were not alienated, no third party interests are created. The petitioner has to first assert their right to succeed the tenancy of their ancestors on the subject land by availing the Civil Law remedy if so available and as such, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners therein.
23. In the light of other Judgment in which the other respondents relied on namely 'Vorla Ramachandra Reddy' referred supra, the Division Bench of this Court made an observation that when there is clear inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two decades in filing an application under Section 32 of Tenancy Act and the protected tenant slept over their rights for two decades, they cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the beneficial provision of Tenancy Act. Here, in this case, the petitioners who are claiming to be legal representatives of one Achiga, who said to have enjoyed the protected tenancy in respect of the land in Sy.No.426 could not place any material to prove that the said Achaiah continuously enjoyed the Protected Tenancy 18 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 Rights till his demise and thereafter, they have succeeded the rights and continued to cultivate the land.
24. In the light of the contentions raised by the respondents No.1 to 5, coupled with the Revenue Record which they placed before the Court which indicates that the names of 1st respondent and his legal representatives are reflected as possessors/enjoyers of the property right from 1951, the belated application of petitioners before the MRO in 1996 could not have been allowed simply by holding that MRO has conducted enquiry. In fact, he did not place any material on the record as to whom he has examined and as to what records he has verified.
25. The Joint Collector while allowing the appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 5 herein categorically held that MRO has no authority to grant succession and there is no material to believe that the tenancy was continued atleast till the date of death of Achaiah, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal under the impugned order.
26. The next ground on which the petitioners sought for setting aside the impugned order is about the alleged delay. The petitioners, who admittedly filed an application 19 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012 before MRO about more than 35 years after the death of Achaiah and without placing any record that Achaiah was continued as protected tenant now questioning the alleged delay in filing the appeal before the Joint Collector. In fact, the respondents have claimed before the learned Joint Collector that they were not served with the copy of the order and soon after the service of the copy, they have filed the appeal before the Joint Collector. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances brought on record, it is very clear that the petitioners herein have been claiming that the above referred Achaiah was enjoying protected tenancy during his life time which is not evident from any acceptable evidence. There is no material to believe that Achaiah was protected tenant till his death. As per the finding of Joint Collector, protected tenant was not subsisting as on the date of death of Achaiah. Admittedly, the application seeking succession of Protected Tenancy Rights by the petitioners herein was filed about 47 years after the death of Achaiah. In view of the judgments referred above, MRO is not competent authority to grant succession.
20 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
27. This Court in the above referred Judgment in the case of 'B.Malla Reddy and Others', referred supra, further observed as follows :
11. To consider the issue, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Sections 402 and 993 of the Act, 1950. Section 40 of the Act, 1950 recognises heirs' right to succeed to protected tenancy. Section 99 of the Act 1950 bars jurisdiction of Civil Court on any issue settled, decided or dealt with by the authorities under the Act.
12. Claim to succession cannot be decided by a Revenue Tribunal and a person claiming to have succeeded to a right or interest of his ancestor vested in a property has to seek declaration from the civil Court. Once such declaration is granted by the civil Court, he can make an application under Section 40 of the Act, 1950. From a plain reading of Section 99 of the Act, 1950 it is apparent that jurisdiction of civil Court is not ousted on deciding the issue of succession claim. It only bars jurisdiction of civil Court against any decision made by the authority under the Act. This finer distinction has to be kept in mind to understand the scheme of the Act.
28. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the petitioners were not able to prove their contention, thereby, they are not entitled to succession of a Protected Tenancy Rights, and MRO, Rajendranagar passed orders without any authority, thereby, the Joint Collector rightly set aside the order passed by MRO on 15-05-1999. Therefore, this Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed.
21 SSRN, J CRP.No.369 of 2012
29. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
________________________ SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J 22nd March, 2024.
PLV