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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
(1979) 1 SCC 321
(1989) 3 SCC 424
(2016) 15 CC 102
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
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
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:03.05.2024
dr
