Kore Rajappa Died Per Lrs vs Smt. M. Mallamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 4403 Tel

             HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.523 of 2021

                               ORDER

1. This revision is directed against the order dated

28.08.2020 passed in Tenancy Appeal No.F1/07/2008 on the

file of the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool, whereby the appeal

filed by the revision petitioners-appellants herein was

dismissed while confirming the order dated 28.07.1988

passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda.

2. One Kore Rajappa filed an application dated

27.04.1988 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda,

under Section 32(2) of A.P. (TA) Agricultural Lands Act, 1950

(for short, 'the Act of 1950') for possession of land in

Sy.No.180 in an extent of Ac.5.28 guntas and in Sy.No182 in

an extent of Ac.6.32 guntas situated within the limits of

Choudharpally, H/o. Cherkur Village of Veldanda Mandal, on

the ground that he is a protected tenant. The Mandal

Revenue Officer rejected the said restoration application in

File No.A/508/1988 dated 28.07.1988. The legal heirs of

Kore Rajappa questioned the said judgment before the Joint

Collector, Mahaboobnagar, in Appeal No.F1/07/2008 and the

same was dismissed by order dated 28.08.2020. Aggrieved by

the said order, this revision is preferred.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents. Perused the record.

4. The basis for the entire litigation is the judgment dated

28.07.1988 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda, in File

No.A/508/88. Basing on the letter of Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mahaboobnagar, bearing L.No.K/1221/88 dated

27.04.1988 to restore the possession of the lands in favour of

Kore Rajappa. Mandal Revenue Officer verified the records

and stated that the P.T.Register of 1950 in column No.13 the

actual cultivators name in the pahani of 1950 is found to be

NIL. M.Mallamma wife of Buchappa in a petition dated

02.05.1998 stated that she is the land holder of Sy.Nos.180,

181 and 182. In the tenancy register the name of Kore

Rajappa was erroneously written including K.Veerabasappa,

K.Siddiramappa, K.Shankarappa sons of Ramappa and

during implementation of Section 38-E of the Act, 1950 the

ownership certificates were given to them, she approached

the Tahsildar and after verification of the records he held that

the ownership certificates issued in their favour are tenable

and directed them to return the same. The Additional

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, in a judgment

dated 04.09.1975 held that the land holders are having less

than two family holdings. Kore Rajappa also filed O.S.No.63

of 1980 on the file of the District Munsiff, Kalwakurthy, and

it was dismissed. Aggrieved the same he preferred A.S.No.103

of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Judge,

Mahaboobnagar, and the appellate Court set aside the order

of the trial Court. Later S.A.No.142 of 1984 was preferred

before this Court and it was dismissed on 15.10.1987. The

statement of Kore Rajappa was recorded by the Mandal

Revenue Officer on 06.06.1988 in the presence of Godugu

Rajaiah and Hanumanth Reddy in which he admitted that his

name was not recorded as actual cultivator in 1950, 1954

and 1952 and even subsequent years but the Additional

Revenue Divisional Officer granted ownership certificate to an

extent of Ac.25.00 guntas. Mallamma approached the Land

Reforms Tribunal and it held that she is not attracted by the

provisions of Section 38-E of the Act, 1950 as her holding is

lesser than two family holdings. When Kore Rajappa was

examined before the appellate Court, he admitted that in

Sy.Nos.180 and 182 Buchappa and Chinna Basappa were

having equal rights in the suit land and the ownership

certificate issued to the petitioner therein is not applicable

and that he and other protected tenants cannot claim rights

in the suit land. He also admitted that the enquiry conducted

in the Tahsildar Office in respect of the wrong entries made in

the phanies from 1975-76 to 1977-78 and a warning was

given to Patwari and the entries were also rectified. The

Mandal Revenue Officer held that the oral surrender made by

Kore Rajappa was before 04.02.1954 and it was admitted by

him in his sworn statement on 06.06.1988 in the presence of

the witnesses. As per Gazette Extraordinary No.29 dated

04.02.1954, the oral surrender before the said date was legal

and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved the said

order, Kore Rajappa preferred an appeal viz., Appeal

No.B7/23/88 before the Joint Collector at Mahaboobnagar.

By order dated 06.01.1992 the Joint Collector held that after

careful perusal of the entries in the pahanies the second

respondent-Mallamma therein was never in possession of the

suit lands prior to 1954-55 and the said lands were under

the occupation of the appellants in the year 1954 and the

pahanies of the Mandal Revenue Officer is not correct. The

tenant can claim his right to possession at any time as long

as the tenancy rights are not legally extinguished and allowed

the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the second

respondent-Mallamma preferred C.R.P.No.757 of 1992 before

this Court and this Court by an order dated 25.01.1996

remanded the matter. Again the Joint Collector,

Mahaboobnagar, in File No.F1/4/1996 dated 23.07.2005

observed that the name of Kore Rajappa was found in

cultivation column of pahanies pertaining to 1955-56, 1956-

57 and 1957-58 in respect of Sy.No.182 and in pahani of

1966-67 in respect of Sy.No.180 and his name is shown as

cultivator during the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 in

respect of both the suit lands and thus he was in possession

of the suit lands up to 1977-78. Surrender of tenancy should

be in writing as per Section 19(3) of the Act, 1950. The oral

surrender of the land by the protected tenant is not proved

and thus directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda, to

hand over possession to the legal heirs of Kore Rajappa.

Again C.R.P.No.37 of 2006 was preferred and this Court

remanded the matter by an order dated 12.09.2007. The

Joint Collector in File No.F1/07/2008 dated 16.06.2008

observed that Kore Rajappa filed an application on

24.04.1988 before the Mandal Revenue Officer for restoration

of possession and he filed another application before the

Mandal Revenue Officer on 14.06.1988 in which he

contended that he is eligible for recovery of possession of the

lands in Sy.No.180 to an extent of Ac.11.24 guntas and in

Sy.No.182 an extent of Ac.13.17 guntas but he was given

possession of half of the lands i.e. in Sy.No.180 to an extent

of Ac.5.32 guntas and in Sy.No.182 to an extent of Ac.6.28

guntas and he requested for restoration of possession of the

remaining land. The said appeal was allowed and the

Tahsildar, Veldanda, was directed to restore possession to the

appellants. Against which again C.R.P.No.3209 of 2009 was

preferred before this Court and by order dated 11.06.2013 it

was remanded and then the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool,

passed order dated 28.08.2020 and the said order is

challenged by the revision petitioners herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein would

contend that the revision petitioners applied for copy of sworn

statement under the RTI Act said to have been given by their

father but it was informed that no such sworn statement is

available in record. Learned counsel would also assert that

acceptance of oral surrender is impermissible and contrary to

Section 19(3) of the Act of 1950. He would also assert that the

total extent of the land in Sy.Nos.180 and 1823 is Ac.25.01

guntas and half of the land comes to Ac.12.20½ guntas but

the protected tenant claimed only Ac.12.20 guntas as he is

entitled for the same under Section 38-E of the Act of 1950.

Learned counsel would also assert that pattadar passbooks

were issued in favour of the legal heirs of Kore Rajappa for an

extent of Ac.12.20 guntas and as per the pahanies for the

years 1975-1978 the protected tenant has not surrendered

the land. Even in the Protected Tenant Register there is no

entry regarding the oral surrender and that they filed certified

copy of the P.T. Register. He would also assert that as the

oral surrender is not proved, the rights of the protected

tenants are still subsisting and they are continuing the

cultivation and that there is no new material to reverse the

finding recorded in the earlier round of litigation and

therefore requested the Court to allow the revision.

6. The respondents herein filed stay vacate petition along

with counter by contending that the ancestors of Buchappa

and their maternal grandfather were the absolute owners of

the lands in Chekur Village, Kalwakurthy Taluq presently

Veldanda Mandal to an extent of Ac.25.00 guntas in

Sy.Nos.180 and 182. Buchappa died in the year 1952 and the

lands were divided between his wife Mallamma and Chinna

Basappa family in equal shares. Their names were mutated

in khasra pahani in the year 1954-55 and also reflected in

the pahanies for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. In

column No.16 against the name of Kore Rajappa 0-8-0 is

mentioned and it reflects that he was the tenant in respect of

half share of the land. He stated that Ramappa, who was the

protected tenant, orally surrendered his rights in the year

1953 before introduction of Section 19 of the Tenancy Act

and that the surrender was oral. Chinna Basappa family has

given partition of the lands on batai basis to Kore Rajappa

and Veerabasappa. Kore Rajappa surrendered the lands

orally in the year 1953 and then Chinnabasappa family was

in possession but the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mahaboobnagar, wrongly issued a certificate under Section

38-E of the Act of 1950 in favour of Kore Rajappa under

Section 38-E regarding the lands of Chinnabasappa and as

such he preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mahaboobnagar. Basing on the ownership certificate

when Kore Rajappa and others tried to interfere with their

lands Mallamma filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 1980 against

Kore Rajappa and others which was dismissed by the

judgment dated 30.09.1980. Against which Mallamma

preferred appeal viz A.S.No.103 of 1980 which was allowed by

judgment dated 19.11.1983 again second appeal was

preferred by the petitioners herein in S.A.No.142 of 1984

which was dismissed on 15.10.1987 and thus the judgment

passed in A.S.No.103 of 1980 attained finality. The

respondents would further state that in respect of the order

passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda, and also

the order passed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer

vide proceedings dated 04.09.1975 in F.No.D/10/74, cherkur

issued final list of protected tenants under Section 38-E in

which the name of Kore Rajappa is shown as protected tenant

but he wrongly issued certificate in favour of Kore Rajappa in

respect of the lands of Chinnabasappa. When Kore Rajappa

gave an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Veldanda, the said application was dismissed on 28.07.1988.

He also reiterated the orders of the Joint Collector and

revisions preferred against them. The respondents would

further state that as per the orders of the Joint Collector the

possession of the lands were handed over to them under a

cover of panchanama. Kore Rajappa family got Ac.2.11

guntas in Sy.No.180 and Ac.6.29 guntas in Sy.No.182 from

Chinnabasappa under tenancy and it was shared between

him and his brothers. Subsequently they purchased the land

from Chinnabasappa and became owners of Ac.5.33 guntas

in Sy.No.180 and Ac.6.29 guntas in Sy.No.182. The land in

Sy.No.180 fell to the share Kore Rajappa and his brother

Shankarappa to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas and Ac.3.00

guntas respectively. Buchamma sold Ac.3.00 guntas in

Sy.No.182 and Ac.3.00 guntas to Veerabasappa. The sons of

Kore Rajappa also sold Ac.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.180 vide

Document No.1876/2020 dated 29.02.2020 and now they are

claiming the lands of Mallamma in Sy.Nos.180 and 182

without having any right and he stated that the order of the

Joint Collector is a reasoned order and it cannot be set aside.

7. The Joint Collector observed that Kore Rajappa

surrendered half of the extent of the lands orally prior to

1952-53 to Chinnabasappa and confirmed the same through

the sworn statement filed before the then Mandal Revenue

Officer, Vendanda, on 06.06.1988 and the officer is

competent to accept the said statement and accordingly he

declared that there are no rights to the protected tenant to

restore the lands in Sy.Nos.180 and 182 respectively. The

respondent protected tenant surrendered his rights himself

and also gave sworn statement before the competent

authority as per Section 19(1)(a) of the Act of 1950 i.e.

termination of tenancy and it was also reflected in khasra

pahani i.e. 1954-55 that the protected tenant is having an

extent of 0-8-0 and possession certificate issued to the

protected tenant under Section 38-E of the Act 1950 and as

such the question of restoration of another half of the extent

does not arise. Accordingly the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool,

confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldanda,

dated 28.07.1988 and dismissed the appeal.

8. Admittedly, the oral surrender was made prior to

04.02.1954 and it was legal as per Gazette Extraordinary

No.29 dated 04.02.1954. In the proceedings before the Joint

Collector, Mahaboobnagar, dated 23.07.2005 Kore Rajappa

stated that his statement was not recorded on 06.06.1988 in

the open Court but the Mandal Revenue Officer obtained his

signatures on white papers. This clearly shows that he

admitted regarding recording the statement by Mandal

Revenue Officer and where as the petitioners herein

contended that they have applied for the certified copy of the

sworn statement of Kore Rajappa but the office informed

them that it is not available. As Kore Rajappa himself

admitted recording of statement by the Mandal Revenue

Officer, the argument of the revision petitioners cannot be

accepted. From a perusal of the pahanies 1955-56, 1956-57

and 1957-58 it is noticed that in possession column against

the name of the protected tenant it was mentioned as 0-8-0

and the revenue records right from khasra pahani 1954-55

would reveal that the name of Kore Rajappa is not in

possession of the lands even prior to 1954-55. The revision

petitioners further stated that the P.T.Register the oral

surrender was not recorded and it was not rounded off and

they filed the extract of P.T.Register. Though Kore Rajappa

surrendered half of the extent, later he denied the same and

gave an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for

restoration of possession of the said extent and from then

onwards the litigation is continuing. In fact, there was oral

surrender before 04.02.1954 and as per the amendment in

Gazette Extraordinary No.29 dated 04.02.1954 the oral

surrender before the said date was held to be legal. The

orders of the Joint Collectors were challenged before this

Court and again remanded back for fresh consideration.

Therefore, it can be presumed that in view of litigation before

Courts, the oral surrender of Kore Rajappa was not recorded

in the P.T.Register.

9. Considering the reasons stated in detail in the above

paragraphs, this Court finds that there is no reason to

interfere with the order of the Joint Collector dated

28.08.2020.

10. In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed

confirming the order under challenge. Interim orders dated

08.09.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 shall stand

vacated.

11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision

shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final order.

____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

6th SEPTEMBER, 2022.

PGS