K. Krishna Reddy, vs The Joint Collector,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3660 Tel

           THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
                                   W.A.No. 834 of 2004
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        This writ appeal has been preferred against the final order

dated 06.01.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

W.P.No.11299 of 2000 filed by respondent No.4 as the petitioner.

2. Be it stated that appellants were respondents No.5 and 6 in

the writ petition.

3. Respondent No.4 had filed the related writ petition for

quashing of order dated 26.03.2000 passed by the Joint Collector,

Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.F2/4993/93 and for directing

the said Joint Collector to hear respondent No.4 in the appeal filed

by the appellants after impleading him as a party respondent

therein.

4. The material facts have been summed up by the learned

Single Judge in the following manner:

"In respect of lands in Survey Nos.6, 7, 8, 343 and 344 of Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, ::2::

owned by one Meer Aslam Khan, a person by name K.Narayana was declared as protected tenant. He was also issued certificate on 26.05.1975 under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). The land holder, Meer Aslam Khan, preferred an appeal against the said certificate before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District-1st respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the original tenant and holder of 38-E certificate is said to have died on 05.03.1977. Respondents 4 to 6 were brought on record as his legal heirs. The 1st respondent allowed the appeal through his order dated 05.01.1988 and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent, in turn passed an order dated 30.09.1993 holding that the certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Thereupon, the legal heirs of the land holder preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent.

During the second round of litigation, the petitioner herein filed an application before the 1st respondent to implead him in the appeal preferred by the land holders. The same was rejected by the 1st respondent through his order dated 26.03.2000. Petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition.

Petitioner contends that there was never an occassoin for any authority to decide the question as to who the legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant are and that the land holders have impleaded respondents 4 to 6 with an attempt to defeat the rights of the actual legal heirs of the protected tenant. It is also stated that respondents 4 to 6 have nothing to do with the ::3::

protected tenant and even their surnames and other descriptions do not support their claim."

5. The writ petition was contested by the appellants. Appellants

contended that they are the actual legal heirs of the deceased

protected tenant and that they had been pursuing the proceedings

ever since 1977. The land holders had engineered filing of the writ

petition to defeat their rights.

6. After hearing the contesting parties, learned Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition vide the order dated 06.01.2004.

Relevant portion of the order dated 06.01.2004 is extracted

hereunder:

"The application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the appeal pending before the 1st respondent, was rejected. In a way, the claim of the petitioner, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 40 of the Act. Section 40 of the Act declares that the rights of the protected tenant are heritable. The Mandal Revenue Officer, is vested with the power to decide as to who among various claimants are the legal heirs of a protected tenant. There is nothing on record to disclose that any exercise was undertaken by the competent authority to decide the rival claims. The manner in which respondents 4 to 6 came to be declared as legal heirs is not evident from the order passed by the 1st respondent in the earlier round of litigation. Rights in respect of a vast extent of ::4::

valuable land cannot be permitted to be dealt with in such a manner.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the question as to who among the writ petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other are the legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant, needs to be decided by the Mandal Revenue Officer, particularly, having regard to the fact that there is dispute as to the actual description of the protected tenant also.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the writ petitioner to submit an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, claiming the status of legal heir of the deceased protected tenant in respect of lands referred to above, within a period of three weeks from today, duly impleading respondents 4 to 6. On such application being made, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, shall issue notice of hearing to respondents 4 to 6, consider the matter on the basis of the material placed before him, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the application by the petitioner. The further proceedings in the appeal pending before the 1st respondent shall be deferred by three months. Only such persons, that are declared as legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, shall be entitled to participate in the appeal. No costs."

7. From the above, we find that the dispute pertains to

who are the actual legal heirs of late K.Narayana, the protected

tenant, so as to enable them to avail the benefits under the ::5::

A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

Since this was a disputed question of fact, learned Single Judge took

the view that it should be decided by the Mandal Revenue Officer

one way or the other. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was given

liberty to submit an application before the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Ghatkesar, to stake his claim as a legal heir of the deceased

protected tenant. Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to decide

the matter within a period of two months from the date of

presentation of the application by respondent No.4 after giving due

notice to the appellants. Till a decision was taken by the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, respondent No.1- Joint Collector,

Ranga Reddy District was directed to defer the hearing in the

appeal by three months.

8. On due consideration, we are of the view that the above

order of the learned Single Judge is a fair and a judicious one and

calls for no interference.

::6::

9. Accordingly and in the light of the above, we do not find any

good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

10. Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, interim suspension of the order of the learned

Single Judge, granted by this Court on 21.09.2004, stands vacated.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_____________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 13.07.2022 LUR