Pathuri Maniamma Died Per Lrs 3 vs The Joint Collector, Rr District And 22 ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2333 Tel

Telangana High Court

Pathuri Maniamma Died Per Lrs 3 vs The Joint Collector, Rr District And 22 ... on 21 June, 2024

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU


CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4511 OF 2010, 5672 OF
              2010 AND 295 OF 2013


COMMON JUDGMENT:

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by

different parties against different respondents. But however,

the dispute is with regard to same property and litigation was

between the same parties based on the earlier litigation and

various orders which will be referred in the following order.

To avoid confusion and for better appreciation, a common

order would suffice for disposal of all the three Revision

Petitions.

2. CRP No.4511 of 2010 has been filed under Section

91 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy And Agricultural Lands

Act, 1950 (herein after will be referred as 'Act, 1950'), by the

Legal Representatives of Pathuri Maniamma namely Pathuri

Mahesh Kumar Goud, Pathuri Pramilamma and Pathuri

Sukanya challenging the order in case No.F2/6299/2009 on

the file of Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy, where under, RDO, 2 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

Ranga Reddy, order in case No.L/141/ 2008 has been

confirmed.

3. CRP No.5672 of 2010 is also filed against the

order of Joint Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.F2/6299/2009

confirming the order of RDO in Case No.L/141/2008. This

revision has been filed by the legal representatives of Uppari

Narasimha and Uppari Seetharamulu and some other third

parties under Section 91 of the Act of 1950.

4. CRP No.295 of 2013 has been filed under Section

91 of Act, 1950, by Atluri Siva Ram Prasad and five others

being legal representatives of one Atluri Sitaramaiah assailing

the order of Joint Collector in Case No.F2/2712/2010, where

under, the order of RDO in case No.H/4239/1980 was

confirmed.

5. As already stated, though different revision

petitions have been filed by different parties, the litigation

revolves around the lands in survey Nos.89, 91, 92 and 93

with corresponding new survey Nos.324, 325, 326, 327 and

328 to an extent of Ac.77-00 gts of land in Mangalpally

Village.

3 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

6. As could be seen from the averments made by the

petitioners in the above referred revision petitions as well as

the contentions raised by the respective respondents, there is

no dispute about the ownership of land by one Dademiaya

over the above referred properties. CRP.Nos.4511 of 2010

and 5672 of 2010 were filed by or on behalf of the legal

representatives, protected tenants of some of the extents in

the above referred survey numbers, where as, CRP.No.295 of

2013 has been filed by the legal representatives of

A.Sitaramaiah, who said to have purchased some of the

extents from the above referred survey numbers from the

original pattedar. Since it is proposed to decide all the Civil

Revision Petitions under the common order, the parties will be

referred to as Legal Representatives of protected tenants and

Legal Representatives of alleged purchasers of the landed

property.

7. As per the averments made in CRP No. 4511 of

2010, the revision petitioners have claimed that the Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District and RDO, East Division, Ranga

Reddy, who are arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 in the said

Civil Revision Petition failed to see that there were no 4 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

proceedings of Tahsildar in terms of Section 19(1)(a) of the

Act, 1950 and no order either pleaded or filed before them,

thereby, they could not have passed the proceedings vide

case No.F2/6299/2009 and case No.L/141/2008. The

petitioners have claimed that the respondents No.1 and 2

committed an illegality by simply relying on photocopies of

alleged affidavits of the protected tenants, in fact, no such

affidavits were filed before the Tahsildar. The originals of the

said affidavits or the certified copies were not available and in

spite of those documents being not admissible in view of

Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act, R.D.O. passed an

incorrect order which was confirmed by the Joint Collector.

8. The said petitioners have claimed that the

protected tenancy in respect of lands in the above referred

survey numbers was among 15 protected tenants, and in view

of Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act, 1950, unless there is a valid

surrender, the respondents namely R.D.O. and Joint Collector

could not have held that there was a surrender of the

protected tenancy in view of the original Pattedar. The

petitioners have also claimed that though the respondents

took a plea that there was a surrender of original tenancy 5 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

in spite of the failure of the land-lord in proving the alleged

surrender and without there being any proceedings as

required under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act, 1950, R.D.O.

could not have accepted the alleged tenancy. The petitioners

have also claimed that as per the recitals of sale deed dated

28-07-1967, possession of the property was delivered and an

agreement of sale dated 27-04-1966 i.e., prior to the alleged

surrender which was alleged to have been done on

16-12-1966 and permission alleged to have been given on

28-02-1967, thereby, under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act,

1950, such a possessory agreement is void-ab-initio and

subsequent permission cannot cure the defect, as such, a

transfer cannot be accepted.

9. The petitioners have also claimed that R.D.O. and

Joint Collector ought to have noticed that even according to

the contesting respondents, the surrender was not joint by all

the protected tenants concerned, as required under Section

proviso of Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act, 1950, but individual

on different dates, thereby, such a surrender is ex-facie

illegal, thereby, R.D.O. and Joint Collector could not have

arrived to such a conclusion as if, there is a valid surrender.

6 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

Even though, the petitioners have raised number of grounds

while filing CRP No.4511 of 2010, the sum and substance of

the contention is there was no such surrender by the original

protected tenant or by their legal representatives, therefore,

the R.D.O. could not have accepted the surrender and could

not have passed order in file No.L/141/2008. The learned

counsel for the petitioners in the said revision petition have

submitted that the record placed before the Court clearly

indicates that while remanding the matter, the High Court

specifically directed the R.D.O. to conduct fresh enquiry based

on the earlier evidence and documents, but R.D.O.

mischievously opened a new file and without considering the

earlier record, simply held that there was surrender of the

earlier protected tenancy, thereby, the said order cannot

sustain.

10. CRP No.5672 of 2010 was on behalf of the legal

representatives/successors of the original protected tenants

and this petition was also filed on similar grounds as raised by

the petitioners in CRP No.4511 of 2010. According to the

averments made in this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioners

have claimed that the order passed by R.D.O. dated 7 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

30-11-2009 in file No.L/141/2008 is based on photocopies of

the alleged surrender which according to the petitioners was

incorrect and R.D.O. failed to consider the evidence available

before the Revenue Authorities and Joint Collector vide his

order dated 10-08-2010 in file No.F2/6299/2009 did not

appreciate their respective contentions and simply confirmed

the order, as such, sought for Setting aside the impugned

order.

11. It appears from the averments made by the

successors of A.Sitaramaiah, who filed CRP No.295 of 2013,

the challenge is against the findings of Special Grade Deputy

Collector and R.D.O., East Division, Ranga Reddy District

(R2 in the said C.R.P.) dated 05-01-1982 and order dated

20-10-2012 by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (R1)

in file No.F2/2712/2010. The petitioners in the said C.R.P.

have claimed that respondent No.2 passed an order granting

ORC in favour of Tulla Padma Reddy (R4) and Narsi Reddy

(R5) in respect of some extents in the above referred survey

numbers. But the said persons are not concerned with the

property purchased by the said A.Sitaramaiah and such claim

could not have raised after the surrender of the tenancy rights 8 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

by the protected tenants. Therefore, sought for setting aside

the orders vide file Nos.H/2439/1980 and F2/2712/2010.

12. A perusal of the entire record in the above

referred Civil Revision Petitions and orders of the Revenue

Divisional Officer and Joint Collector under various

proceedings as well as the orders of this Court in different

proceedings indicates that Late Uppari Keshavulu and Vadla

Narsimhlu were protected tenants of the land in the above

referred survey numbers, which originally belonged to a

person by name Dademiaya. It also appears that on the

application made by the predecessors in the interest of

protected tenants before R.D.O. vide file No.H/2285/1982, the

Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 24-09-1983 granted

38-E certificate to the protected tenants under the provisions

of the Act, 1950. It also appears that Uppari Laxmaiah, Uppari

Narsimloo and Uppari Seetharamiah, the sons of said

Keshavulu was granted 38-E certificate in respect of Ac.39-00

gts from survey Nos.326 and 328, where as, Vadla Pentaiah,

Vadla Laxmi Narayana and Vadla Viswanatham, the sons of

protected tenant Vadla Narsimha were granted 38-E

certificate in respect of Ac.37-00 gts of land in survey 9 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

Nos.324, 325 and 328. Aggrieved by the grant of such

certificate in favour of the above referred persons,

A.Sitaramaiah filed an appeal before the Joint Collector in file

No.B4/6216/1985 and Joint Collector by his order dated

03-01-1988, set aside the above referred 38-E certificates

and remanded the matter to R.D.O. for fresh enquiry.

13. As could be seen from the proceedings on such

remand, R.D.O. by order dated 29-11-1999 in file

No.L/4183/1987, rejected the claim of protected tenants,

thereby, they preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector in

file No.F2/7405/1999 and Joint Collector by his order dated

30-05-2003 held in the following words:

"In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the original pattedar has given a notice in writing to the protected tenants of his intention to sell the land. On the contrary, without giving a notice to the protected tenants, the original pattedars have sold the lands to the respondent No.1, the father of the respondents No.2 to 6 through a registered sale deed. This sale is totally contrary to the provisions of Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, it is held that the sale made in favour of respondent No.1 is a nullity and void in the eye of law. In the result, the order under appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed".

10 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

14. Therefore, from the above order, it is clear that

the Joint Collector set aside the sale of property in favour of

A.Sitaramaiah and recognised the right of protected tenants.

15. Being aggrieved by the order referred above, a

Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the successors of

A.Sitaramaiah vide CRP No.2726 of 2003 and this Court by

order dated 08-07-2006 allowed the Civil Revision Petition

and remanded the matter to R.D.O. by formulating the

following two issues for adjudication.

(a) Whether the lands which were held by the respondents and their predecessors in-title as protected tenants, are the same as those purchased by the petitioners ? and

(b) Whether the surrender of Tenancy Rights said to have been made by and on behalf of the respondents, is valid in law ?

16. On such remand, R.D.O. has conducted a detailed

enquiry in file No.L/4163/1987 and recorded the evidence of

parties. It seems, PWs.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the

protected tenants, who have marked Exs.A1 to A21 and

RWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the opposite party

and they have marked Exs.B1 to B22. The R.D.O. on

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence referred

above, disposed the case by his order dated 06-04-2006 with

the following findings:

11 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

(1) The lands purchased by A.Sitaramaiah were the same lands which the petitioners were given 38-E certificate ?

(2) Surrender of P.T. Rights is not valid under Section 19 (1) of the Tenancy Act and that the earlier 38-E certificate issued earlier was held to be valid?

17. However, aggrieved by the order dated

06-04-2006, the opposite party have preferred an appeal

before the Joint Collector vide file No.F2/4166/2006 and Joint

Collector by his order dated 10-01-2008 allowed the appeal

and made the following observations :

"On the first issue, the Revision Divisional Officer, East Division has arrived at a finding that the lands purchased by the appellants herein and respondents and their predecessor- in-interest as protected tenants are one and the same. No fresh evidence has been produced by the parties to the appeal to dispute the above finding. As such, the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division on this point is confirmed".

"On the second issue (b) i.e., "whether the surrender of Tenancy Rights said to have been made by and on behalf of the respondent is valid in law?

18. On second issue i.e., whether the surrender of

tenancy rights said to have been made by and on behalf of

the respondent is valid in law, - The Joint Collector gave

certain directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer and

remanded the case for fresh enquiry.

12 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

19. As could be seen from the proceedings even

though as per the order dated 10-01-2008, Joint Collector

gave a direction to the R.D.O. to decide the second issue

about the surrender of tenancy rights based on the earlier

file, the R.D.O. instead of restoring the original file i.e., file

No.L/4163/1987 appears to have opened a new file bearing

file No.L/141/2008. It also appears from the record, in the

meanwhile, the successors of protected tenants have filed a

Civil Revision Petition against the orders of Joint Collector

dated 10-01-2008 vide CRP No.1321 of 2008. The said Civil

Revision Petition was disposed by order dated 13-08-2009

and the matter was remanded to R.D.O. with the following

observations:

"The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to decide the matter independently uninfluenced by the observations made by the Joint Collector after giving notice to both parties and after receiving further evidence to decide the surrender of Tenancy Rights is valid in law and whether the purchase of the land by A.Sitaramaiah was valid. Therefore, by virtue of the order in CRP No.1321 of 2008, the original protected tenancy in favour of Uppari Kesavulu and Vadla Narsimulu as protected tenants has been accepted and there is a necessity to decide whether the lands purchased by the said A.Sitaramaiah are the same lands for which the above referred two persons were recorded as protected tenants".

13 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

20. In view of the above stated circumstances and a

perusal of the impugned orders in all the Civil Revision

Petitions, it is quite clear that the Joint Collector except

reiterating the contentions raised by the parties and reasons

given by the R.D.O. did not apply his mind independently and

passed the impugned order without any valid reasons. He did

not call for the original records which have been discussed

and dealt with in the order of R.D.O. and by simply reiterating

the reasons of R.D.O. which was subject to the appeal before

the Joint Collector, passed an order. As rightly contended by

the learned counsel on behalf of the protected tenants or

successors, absolutely, there were no reasoning given by the

Joint Collector in the impugned order. There is a failure on

the part of Joint Collector to appreciate or discuss the grounds

raised by the protected tenants and the records placed before

the R.D.O. or Joint Collector were not properly appreciated.

21. As already stated in the previous paragraphs, the

Revenue Divisional Officer, who received the file on remand

in stead of appreciating the record available in the original file

simply opened a new case vide file No.L/141/2008 and

without verifying the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, RWs.1 to 3 and 14 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

their respective exhibits, passed the impugned order. There

is no dispute about the examination of four witnesses on

behalf of the protected tenants apart from marking Exs.A1 to

A21 and three witnesses by the alleged purchaser a part from

marking Exs.B1 to B22. The same was not considered nor

they were referred in the proceedings of R.D.O. dated

30-11-2009. In view of the orders of this Court in CRP

No.2726 of 2003, there is a finding by this Court, where

under, possession of the protected tenants over the property

was up held. But the Revenue Divisional Officer without there

being any material gave a contrary finding. There is no

dispute about the order of this Court in CRP No.1321 of 2008

dated 13-08-2009 by which the protected tenancy in favour

of Kesavulu and Narsimha was accepted and it was also held

that the same property for which the above referred two

persons were protected tenants was purchased by

A.Sitaramaiah.

22. The impugned order of R.D.O. as was confirmed

by the Joint Collector indicates that R.D.O. having accepted

the photo copies of some proceedings said to have been given

by the original protected tenants without considering the 15 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

objection raised by the protected tenants about the

admissibility of the documents simply held that there was

surrender of the property by the protected tenants.

Admittedly, there was no notice to the parties before marking

the photo copies of the alleged surrender proceedings,

thereby, the representatives of the protected tenants were

not having any opportunity to dispute the genuineness of the

alleged surrender proceedings.

23. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A1

to A21 available in file No.L/4163/1987 were not considered.

It also appears from the record that none of the parties

concerned with the alleged photo copies of surrender

proceedings were examined. There is no proof before the

R.D.O. to accept that the said photo copies of surrender were

singed by the original protected tenants. The order impugned

did not indicate that R.D.O. call for any previous records to

refer whether there was any such surrender. In addition to

that even though, if it is accepted that there was such

surrender on the face of the documents it shows that there

were no survey numbers with corresponding extents of land

said to have been surrendered under those proceedings. The 16 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

original application said to have been made by the protected

tenants seeking surrender of the tenancy was not called nor

the same was marked. Therefore, in the absence of any such

application by the protected tenant, the conclusion of R.D.O.

that protected tenants have surrendered the tenancy is

baseless, wrong and contrary to law.

24. According to the findings given by R.D.O. in the

impugned order, there were more than 15 tenants on the

subject property but some of them said to have given a

statement about the surrender, wherein, the survey numbers

are the extents were not noted. Therefore, it is quite clear

that these statements marked as Exs.B4 to B7 are contrary to

the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 1950. There is no

finding in the order of R.D.O. that it has been established to

his satisfaction that surrender made in good faith, thereby,

such a tenancy could not have been accepted. In the

absence of any proceedings as required under Section

19(1)(a) of the Act, it cannot be said that protected tenants

have surrendered the tenancy. It is true, R.D.O. while

passing the impugned order claimed that permission was

given under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act of 1950, but failed 17 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

to see that the said permissions were obtained after the

agreement of sale was entered between A.Sitaramaiah and

original pattedar and that the agreement of sale and sale

deed are hit by Section 38-D of the Act, 1950. Admittedly,

the protected tenants were not made parties through the

permission and therefore, they have no knowledge about the

such order, consequently, could not have challenged the

proceedings.

25. Therefore, once it is held that the permission itself

is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Tenancy Act,

those proceedings are nonest and void in the eye of law

thereby, they cannot be considered. In such a case, mere

grant of permission under Section 47 of the Act does not

confer any right on the purchaser nor it will take away the

vested rights of protected tenants. Therefore, the alleged

sale of the property which was held by the protected tenants

is contrary to the provisions of Section 38-B of Tenancy Act

which provides that a protected tenant should be first offered

the land for purchase and in case of his decline, the offer can

be made to third-party. The record produced by the parties

no where shows that there is such a notice as contemplated 18 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act.

26. It also appears from the record that the

agreement of sale between A.Sitaramaiah and original

pattedar dated 27-04-1966 is subsequent to the alleged

surrender of the protected tenancy. Therefore, the entire

surrender proceedings are suspicious and contrary to Section

19 (1) of the Act, 1950.

27. It also appears from the record that R.D.O. made

an observation that the protected tenants have accepted the

surrender of the property in the other proceedings vide

OS.No.177 of 1975 and OS.No.179 of 1975 but as a matter of

fact, a reading of the said judgment revealed that such as

surrender is in respect of survey No.106 which is not the

subject matter in the present litigation. Therefore, the

findings of R.D.O. that A.Sitaramaiah was in possession of the

property is contrary to the observations made by this Court in

CRP.No.2726 of 2003. The findings of R.D.O. based on

photocopies of the deposition of some of the protected

tenants is not only contrary to the provisions of Act, 1950,

but also against the provisions of Evidence Act.

19 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

28. Therefore, the contention of the protected tenants

that those documents which were marked behind their back

cannot be basis for the impugned order. It is an admitted

fact that in the earlier round of litigation neither the said

A.Sitaramaiah nor his legal representatives have filed the said

photocopies of deposition and for the first time, they brought

those documents into existence after the R.D.O. opened a

new file that is after the remand of the proceeding by the

High Court.

29. It also appears from the record that no

proceeding under Section 19 (1) of Act, 1950 have been

initiated. Therefore, the conclusion of R.D.O. that protected

tenants have surrendered the tenancy is contrary to the

provisions of Act, 1950, thereby, he could not have held that

there was valid surrender, thereby, the purchase of land by

A.Sitaramaiah will not convey any valid title in his favour.

As per the record placed before this Court, it also shows that

when the protected tenants filed two suits vide OS.No.177 of

1975 and OS.No.179 of 1975 on the file of District Munsif,

Ibrahimpatnam. The said purchaser having got impleaded as

party, subsequently, deleted from the array of the parties and 20 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

both the suits were decreed in favour of the protected tenant,

thereby, accepted the possession of the tenants over the

disputed property.

30. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the

R.D.O. that the protected tenants are estopped from claiming

that they are protected tenants on the basis of judgments in

the above referred original suits is misconceived and

incorrect. The entire record would indicate that the protected

tenants or subsequent to their death, their legal

representatives are in possession of the property for more

than 50 years. The surrender claimed by the alleged

purchasers is without any basis rather on the basis of some

fabricated documents which is evident from the Revenue

Record which clearly reflects the possession of the petitioners

over the property since a long time. There is no dispute

about the dismissal of suit filed by A.Sitaramaiah in OS.No.65

of 1981.

31. Therefore, the order of R.D.O. which is confirmed

by Joint Collector are liable to be set aside. There is a finding

about the possession of protected tenants over the property.

R.D.O. could not have given a contrary of finding. The claim 21 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

of protected tenants that they have obtained 38-E certificates

long back is not in dispute, thereby, the subsequent order of

R.D.O. accepting the surrender may not stand in the way of

their claim. The learned counsel for the petitioners in

CRP.No.4511 of 2010 and CRP.No.5672 of 2010 has

submitted that the Act, 1950 came into effect from

10-06-1950 and tenants, who were in possession of the

property as on the date were recognized as protected

tenants. The said Act is a beneficial legislation which covers

several rights of the tenants. The said Act was brought into

existence to stop the exploitation of the Farmers, who are

poor and illiterate, thereby, mere recording the names of

subsequent purchasers in the pattedar column will not give

any right to the said purchasers that too against the

protected tenants whose possession was proved on the basis

of Revenue Record. When the issuance of certificate under

Section 38-E was proved and in the absence of a valid

surrender, R.D.O. could not have held that there was

surrender on the basis of same photocopies of the record.

For the said proposition, the learned counsel for the

petitioners have relayed on a judgment between 'Kotaiah 22 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

and Another Vs. Property Association of the Baptist

Churches (Pvt.) Ltd., 1 wherein, it is held that

"(iv) Section 38(D) prohibits the landholder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to this parties. The alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal effect.

23. So return to the case. The contention of the Association that it is in defacto possession and entitled to symbolic possession is unavailable and indeed, unacceptable. Firstly, there cannot be any dispute in this case about the protected tenancy rights of the appellants. The revenue documents like Pahanipatrika and final record of agricultural tenancy clearly establish that the appellants were recognised as protected tenants. Secondly, it was not the case of the Association that Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri first offered the land to the appellants before they transferred the same to the Association. Therefore, in the light of the statutory provisions to which we have called attention, the appellants title cannot be said to be legitimate".

32. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court, sale deed in favour of A.Sitaramaiah is hit by

provisions of Section 38-D of the Act, 1950, as such, it is void

and nonest.

33. Reliance was also placed on a judgment reported

in AIR 1988 Andhra Pradsh 77 Full Bench, where there is

a finding about the protected tenant and granting of

(1989) 3 SCC 424 23 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

ownership certificate and also about the surrender of the

protected tenancy by the tenant.

34. In another judgment between 'Musunuri

Satyanarayana Vs. Dr.Tirumala Indira Devi and

Others' 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe

that "Twin conditions that make a valid surrender of tenancy

are firstly, three months notice in writing to landlord which is

mandatory, and to Special Officer about intention to

surrender tenancy; and secondly, satisfaction recorded by

Special Officer in an order, after due inquiry about voluntary

nature of surrender of tenancy".

35. In the above said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court

while holding that neither landlord nor persons, who

purchased land proved that surrender notices were issued to

them followed by inquiry conducted by Special Officer,

thereby, held there was no surrender of tenancy.

36. In the case on hand, there is no record to believe

that there was such a valid surrender based on the

proceedings as required under the provisions of Act, 1950,

therefore, the impugned order so far as it is relating to the

surrender of the tenancy is liable to be set aside,

(2022) 11 SCC 410 24 SSRN, J Civil Revision Petition Nos.4511 of 2010, 5672 of 2010 and 295 of 2013

consequently, the contentions of the petitioners in

CRP.No.4511 of 2010 and CRP.No.5672 of 2010 have to be

accepted and those Civil Revision Petitions are deserves to be

allowed. As such, the contentions of the Revision Petitioners

in CRP.No.295 of 2013 are liable to be negatived,

consequently, the said Civil Revision Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

37. In the result, both the CRP.No.4511 of 2010 and

CRP.No.5672 of 2010 are allowed and CRP.No.295 of 2013 is

dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed.

No costs.

__________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

Date: 21.06.2024 PLV