T.Krishna Bai And 4 Others vs The Joint Collector And 5 Others

Telangana High Court

T.Krishna Bai And 4 Others vs The Joint Collector And 5 Others on 3 May, 2024

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.3314 of 2012
ORDER:

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri E.Ajay Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.

2. Challenging the order, dated 11.06.2012, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F2/1390/2009, whereby the order dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in File No.G/39/2008, was confirmed, the present Revision Petition is filed.

3. The facts of the case, if narrated in a narrow compass, are that the subject land in Sy.No.13 admeasuring Acs.16-03 guntas situated at Raikunta Village, Pedda Golconda Gram Panchayath, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belongs to one Gaddamedi Jangaiah, who acquired the same by virtue of 38-E Certificate, vide Proceedings No.LRW/159/75, dated 28.08.1975 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Tenancy Tribunal 2 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 and consequently, his name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor.

3.1. During the life time of Gaddamedi Jangaiah, he sold the entire land admeasuring Ac.16-03 guntas in Sy.No.13 to the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 namely Sri G.Goverdhan Reddy under an Agreement of Sale for valuable consideration and after receiving the total sale consideration, said Gaddamedi Jangaiah has executed registered GPA bearing document No.1115/1994, dated 09.05.1994, in favour of one Sri Govardhan Reddy, who is father of respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3.2. The said Gaddamedi Jangaiah expired on 09.07.1998 and therefore, the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6, approached the legal representatives of late Gaddamedi Jangaiah, who are respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, and requested them to execute sale deed since the GPA has become infructuous. Accordingly, respondent Nos.3 and 4, being the sons of Gaddamedi Jangaiah, have executed registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.970/1998 dated 28.08.1998 and 971/1998, dated 28.08.1998 for an extent of Acs.10-00 guntas and Acs.6-03 guntas respectively 3 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and after execution of the sale deeds, their names were mutated in the revenue records, vide Proceedings No.B/1477/2002 and B/1478/2002, dated 07.11.2002 and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour.

3.3. While so, the daughter of Gaddamedi Jangaiah filed a suit in O.S.No.1196 of 2007 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and ultimately, the said suit was compromised before the Lok Adalath.

3.4. That one T.Raja Ram Singh i.e., alleged ancestor of the petitioners herein has filed an Appeal under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act before respondent No.1 vide File No.B4/3800/96, against issuance of 38-E Certificate in favour of Gaddamedi Jangaiah in Proc.No.LRW/158/75, dated 15.05.1975, after about 21 years from the date of such issuance and ultimately, after enquiry, the Joint Collector dismissed the Appeal vide orders dated 18.04.1998. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the said T.Raja Ram Singh was carried the matter to the High Court by way of 4 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 filing C.R.P.No.3870 of 1998 and this Court by order, dated 29.10.2001, allowed the said CRP and set aside the orders of the Joint Collector and remanded the matter with a direction to the Primary Authority to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to remand, respondent No.2 has taken up the matter in File No.G/420/2001 and after conducting enquiry, passed orders dated 24.04.2002 holding that there are no grounds and reasons to interfere with the ownership certificate issued to Gaddamedi Jangaiah under Section 38-E Certificate of A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Tenancy Act'), in File No.LRW/159/75 dated 28.08.1975 in respect of Sy.No.13 admeasuring Ac.16-03 guntas. 3.5. The legal representatives of T.Raja Ram Singh filed petition vide Proc.No.G/39/2008 before respondent No.2 seeking to set aside the said order, dated 24.04.2002 in File No.G/420/2001 along with a petition for condonation of delay of 1,687 days in filing the set aside petition. In the said Petition, the revision petitioners claimed that they were the owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.16-03 guntas in Sy.No.13 5 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 situated at Raikunta Village, Pedda Golconda Gram Panchayath, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the same vide registered sale deed dated 28.05.1962 from Sri Raja Parmanandas, and out of the said land, an extent of Acs.12-29 guntas was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Outer Ring Road.

4. After hearing the case, respondent No.2 dismissed the said Petition, vide order dated 25.03.2008 in Procgs.No.G/39/2008. Aggrieved thereby, the legal representatives of T.Raja Ram Singh filed Appeal before respondent No.1 in Case No.F2/1390/2009 and ultimately, the said Appeal was also dismissed vide orders dated 11.06.2012. Questioning the said orders, the legal representatives of T.Raja Ram Singh filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Joint Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer have not conducted a detailed enquiry as per the Tenancy Act in respect of the subject property while issuing 38-E Certificate in favour of father of respondent Nos.3 and 4; that the Joint Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to appreciate the fact that 6 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 name of revision petitioners' predecessor was found in the pattadar and possessor column and there is no protected tenant in respect of the subject land and therefore, issuance of 38-E Certificate to father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is bad in law and consequently, the sale deed executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is nullity in the eye of law and therefore, he prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents- respondent Nos.3 to 6 contended that respondent No.2 already issued 38-E Certificate in favour of one Gaddameedi Jangaiah vide orders dated 28.08.1975 in respect of the subject land and thus, the subject land ceased to be the tenancy land and the provisions of the Tenancy Act are not applicable to the case; that the suit- O.S.No.1196 of 2007 filed by the daughter of the said Gaddamedi Jangaiah was compromised before Lok Adalat. He further contended that the revision petitioners failed to produce the alleged sale deed dated 28.05.1962 under which Sri T.Raja Singh was said to have purchased the subject land and even otherwise, as the subject land falls under protect tenancy, the petitioners have failed 7 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 to establish that procedure contemplated under Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act has been followed and hence, they do not get valid title in respect of the subject property and accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Major Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. Latafat Ullah Khan and others 1, Kotaiah and another Vs. Property Associationi of the Baptist Churches (Pvt) Ltd 2 and B.Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy and others 3.

8. In Major Chandra Bhan Singh's case (cited supra), Hon'ble Apex Court at para 13 of the judgment held as under:-

"It is well settled that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision therefor."

9. It is to be noted that the above observation was made by Hon'ble Apex Court in a matter arising out of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. Therefore, the said judgment has no 1 (1979) 1 SCC 321 2 (1989) 3 SCC 424 3 (2016) 15 CC 102 8 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 application to the present case arising out of Tenancy Act and is of no help to the respondents.

10. In Kotaiah's case (cited supra), Hon'ble Apex Court at para 22 of the judgment observed that Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act envisages the procedure when landholder intends to sell land to a protected tenant and the alienation made in contravention of the said provision has no legal effect.

11. In B.Bal Reddy's case (cited supra), Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down in Kotaiah's case (cited supra) and observed as hereunder:-

"It is not the case of the appellants that alienations effected by the landholders were in conformity with Section 38-D of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The appellate authority was therefore right in holding that the present appellants had no locus standi. It, however, erred in considering the merits of the matter despite having rendered such a finding on the issue of locus standi. In our view, all transactions entered into without following the procedure prescribed in Section 38-D of the Act are without any legal effect as held in Kotaiah case."

12. A perusal of the record discloses that prior to granting of ownership certificate to Gaddamedi Jangaiah, a Provisional list of 9 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 protected tenancy to whom ownership rights to be granted was published, objections were called for, but, as no objections were received, the Land Reforms Tribunal granted ownership certificate to Gaddamedi Jangaiah, vide Proceedings No.LRW/159/75, dated 28.08.1975. Subsequently, as he was out of possession, he filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad for delivery of possession, who after due enquiry, delivered possession of the land to Gaddamedi Jangaiah on 11.11.1987. Further, it is pertinent to note that in the final list of protected tenants to whom ownership of land is to be transferred under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the name of one Ravi Narender Dass was shown as land holder and the name of Gaddamedi Jangaiah was shown as protected tenant. As such, the record speaks that no where the name of one Raja Paramannand Das was shown as owner and pattadar in respect of the subject land, from whom allegedly the father of the petitioners purchased the subject land under registered sale deed dated 28.05.1962. In such an event, when objections were called for regarding issuance of ownership certificate, the persons who claim or have objections should have filed their 10 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 claims/objections, however, no objections were received by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer granted ownership certificate to Gaddamedi Jangaiah under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act.

13. After delivery of possession of the subject land to Gaddamedi Jangaiah, the petitioners filed O.S.No.364 of 1987 seeking the relief of injunction on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, against Jangaiah and two others and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.1993. Challenging the said judgment and decree, no appeal was preferred, hence, the said judgment has become final. Thus, the rights of the parties have been crystallized, which shows that the petitioners failed to prove their ownership and possession in respect of the subject land.

14. Even otherwise, assuming for a moment that the petitioners have purchased the subject land from the land holder, since the subject land falls under the protected tenancy, the procedure envisaged under Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act ought to have been followed, i.e., if the landlord intends to sell away the lands covered under protected tenancy, he should give first option 11 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 to the protected tenant of such intention with written notice and if the protected tenant has not opted to purchase, then the landlord is entitled to sell away such lands to third parties.

15. However, in the instant case, the petitioner failed to establish that Jangaiah was not protected tenant and further, they have also failed to show that their vendor has given any notice or option as envisaged under Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act to the protected tenant whose name was recorded in the revenue records, therefore, the sale effected by the alleged land holder in favour of T.Raja Ram Singh, who is father of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and husband of petitioner No.1, is held to be bad in law and invalid.

16. Therefore, in the light the above discussion and also following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kotaiah's case (cited supra), which was reiterated in B.Bal Reddy's case (cited supra), it has to be held that the sale effected in favour of T.Raja Ram Singh by the alleged pattadar and owner by name Rai Narender Dass without following the procedure prescribed under Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act has no legal sanctity and no title will pass to the petitioners. Further, it is a 12 LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012 matter of fact that the petitioners failed to produce the alleged sale deed dated 28.05.1962 and in the absence of any material evidencing their right or ownership over the subject land, the petitioners have no locus standi to seek cancellation of the ownership certificate issued to Gaddamedi Jangaiah.

17. Further, it is trite to note that initially, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Collector against granting of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act to Gaddamedi Jangaiah in the year 1998 and the said appeal stood dismissed. On filing of Revision against the said order, the High Court by order dated 29.10.2001 in CRP.No.387 of 1998 remanded the matter to the primary authority for disposal afresh in accordance with law and after giving notice to all concerned. Pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has taken up fresh enquiry, however, the petitioners though served with notice did not choose to contest the case by filing the material documents i.e., the alleged sale deed through which they purchased the subject land and also failed to prove that Gaddamedi Jangaiah was not a protected tenant.

LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012

18. On the other hand, the material available on record i.e., file No.LRW/158/75 goes to show that the provisional list of protected tenants to whom ownership of land is to be transferred was prepared in which the name of Gaddamedi Jangaiah was shown as protected tenant in respect of subject land in Sy.No.13, and as no objections/claims were received in respect of the subject land, the Land Reforms Tribunal issued ownership certificate to Gaddamedi Jangaiah under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, it is evident that issuance of ownership certificate to Gaddamedi Jangaiah is in conformity with the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

19. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have utterly failed to establish their claim over the subject land before the hierarchal revenue authorities and as such, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

LNA, J CRP.No.3314 of 2012

21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:03.05.2024 dr