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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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".

2021 SCC Online TS 703 15 SSRN, J

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.

1968 (2) ALT 66 16 SSRN, J

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

2021 SCC Online TS 895 17 SSRN, J

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

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

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

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

29. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are

closed. No costs.