Telangana High Court
Madireddy Santosh And 53 Others vs The Joint Collector And 47 Others on 25 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1160, 1161, 1162, 1163,
1164 AND 567 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Since the parties and lis involved in these revision
petitions are same, they were heard together and are being
disposed of by way of this common order.
2. These revision petitions are preferred being aggrieved
by the common order dated 31.08.2019 passed in
Case Nos.F2/2422/2018, F2/2673/2018, F2/2674/2018,
F2/2675/2018 and F2/2676/2018. The respondents in the
said cases are the revision petitioners, and the appellants in
the said cases are respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, and
respondent Nos.5 to 10 in CRP.No.567 of 2020.
3. The brief facts of the cases on hand are that the
appellants filed the above mentioned appeals under Section
90 of the Telangana State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950 (for short 'Act 1950') which were remanded back
for fresh determination by affording opportunity to the
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
parties in CRP.Nos.1552, 1544, 2663, 4444 and 4447 of
2015 that were preferred by the same parties as that of
these revision petitions. The case revolves around a dispute
over land ownership and tenancy rights concerning old
Survey Numbers27/12 and 27/13 which were later assigned
new Survey Numbers 135, 136, 131, 132, and 150 in
Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The appellants, who are descendants of one Kandada
Yellaiah, contend that the name of their grandfather was the
recorded as Protected Tenant of lands bearing old Survey
Nos. 27/2 and 27/3, and that Kandada Yellaiah never
surrendered his tenancy rights under the provisions of the
Act, 1950, and that his name was allegedly removed from
the tenancy register without following due process.
4. In addition, that Section 38-E certificates were
wrongly granted to other parties by the then Revenue
Divisional Officer (RDO) without proper verification of the
tenancy records or issuing notices to the rightful claimants.
The revision petitioners who are respondents therein
contended that the appellants and their family members had
already been granted Section 38-E certificates for different
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
survey numbers and had sold those lands to third parties,
contending that the proceedings in question were finalized
through a common order dated 23.02.1984, following due
process under the relevant Tenancy Correction Rules.
Further, that the appellants were aware of the corrections
made to the tenancy register and that their current claims
are invalid and time-barred. It was emphasized that the
disputed lands have since been converted to non-
agricultural use, several plots were sold to bona fide
purchasers over the past two decades. Aggrieved by the
orders passed by the Joint Collector dated 31.08.2019
through which the order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer vide File No.3043/78 dated 23.02.1984 was set
aside, remanding the matter back to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, this Revision Petition is preferred.
5. Heard Mr. D.Srinivas, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Mr. P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned
counsel for revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.1160, 1162,
1163 and 1164 of 2020, Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Prathyusha Bopanna,
learned counsel for revision petitioners in CRP.No.567 of
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
2020, and Mr. Avancha H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for
respondents/appellants.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision
petitioners in CRP.Nos.1160, 1161, 1162, 1163 and 1164 of
2020 submitted that the impugned common orders dated
31.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, are arbitrary,
illegal, and against the facts on record and circumstances of
the case. He firstly contended that the Joint Collector failed
to consider the crucial aspect of the respondents'
acceptance of corrections and the execution of sale deeds to
third parties based on the original orders dated 23.02.1984
and asserted that the same is a vital issue that goes to the
root of the matter. Secondly, that the Joint Collector failed to
frame the core issues in the case, which is a fundamental
requirement of any adjudicatory process, and instead, the
Joint Collector relegated the adjudication to the RDO, which
is not only unwarranted but also outside the purview of the
remand order, and lamented that the same amounts to clear
violation of the principles of natural justice.
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
7. The learned senior counsel thirdly, contended that the
Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeals on the
grounds of delay, laches, and lack of bonafides. He lamented
that the respondents had accepted the benefits of the orders
dated 23.02.1984 and had executed sale deeds to third
parties, and later sought to question the same orders, which
is not permissible in law, as such, he divulged that the same
is a clear case of approbate and reprobate, where a party
cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Fourthly, that
the Joint Collector failed to consider the fact that the
respondents had submitted to the correction of their
tenancy records and had accepted the benefits thereof, due
to which they cannot now be permitted to question the same
records. Fifthly, that the Joint Collector ought to have been
conscious of the fact that the Hyderabad Tenancy Records
(Correction) Rules, 1956, are framed on 04.02.1956 in
exercise of the powers conferred by section 97 r/w sections
35 and 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950, basing on which the Joint Collector ought to have
dismissed the appeal cases instead of remanding the same
to RDO by taking into consideration the concurrent findings
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
on the factual aspects arrived at in the earlier round of
adjudication reflected in the orders dated 15.02.2005 &
11.07.2014.
8. While advocating that the Joint Collector ought to
have dismissed the appeal cases by treating them as
vexatious litigation designed to harass the innocent plot
owners after reaping the benefits of orders dated 23.02.1984
he prayed this Court to consider the precedents filed
thereon, and to set aside the impugned common order by
allowing these revision petitions.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision
petitioners in CRP.No.567 of 2020 submitted that the
impugned common order is flawed for several reasons,
contending that the same is contrary to law and facts placed
on record. He further contended that the established set of
legal principles of law, were ignored, including the principle
that "once a protected tenant, always a protected tenant"
does not apply in cases where the rights of tenants have
been corrected or waived. He pointed out that the
respondents never had any rights in respect of Survey
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
No. 27/3, and that the contention of respondents to
protected tenancy rights in respect of the said land is bogus
and not supported by any evidence. He lamented that the
respondents had accepted the corrections made to the
tenancy register and had executed sale deeds to third
parties, thereby, waiving their rights in respect of the said
land and divulged that the respondents had not approached
the Court with clean hands. He articulated that the
respondents had obtained ownership certificates and sold
their land without disclosing the fact, and therefore, their
appeals ought have been dismissed at the threshold, as they
had suppressed material facts and had made false
statements, which amounts to fraud. He contended that the
observation made in the impugned common order that the
petitioners had not accepted the corrections and executed
sale deeds to third parties, is an error apparent to the facts
of the cases. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow these
revision petitions, setting aside the impugned common
order.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
respondents, vehemently, opposed the contentions made by
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
respective learned senior counsel for revision petitioners,
and contended that the present revisions are not
maintainable, as the order of the Joint Collector is merely a
remand order and does not decide the rights of the parties.
In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment
rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla
Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and
another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a
revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable
against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision
petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that
were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier
round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had
earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984
which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be
allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier
decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners
cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and
became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly
contended that even assuming that an error was crept in,
1960 (1) ALT P 191
2001 (1) ALD P 382
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same
cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have
become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to
re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against
them.
11. He divulged that the contention of revision petitioners'
that they were not parties to the earlier round of litigation
and that they are bonafide purchasers is not the correct law.
He contended that the petitioners' contention to have
purchased the property pendente lite, and stepping into the
shoe of their vendors who have contested the case is false.
He placed reliance on the precedents whereunder it was
held that a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decision
in the suit, and cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that
have been finally decided against the vendor. He proclaimed
that the petitioners have not challenged the judgment
rendered by this Court in CRP No.1552 of 2015 and batch
dated 02.05.2018, which had decided the issues raised
thereof, and on contrary, they are now seeking to re-agitate
the same issues that were earlier decided against them,
which is not permissible under the law.
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
12. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that
the petitioners' contention that the judgment rendered in
CRP.No.1552 of 2015 and batch dated 02.05.2018 is bad in
law, cannot be tenable, as they have not challenged the
judgment within the stipulated time, and therefore, the
judgment has become final, and also reiterated the principle
of law that a party cannot be allowed to challenge a
judgment that has become final. Therefore, he concluded his
arguments and prayed this Court to dismiss the revision
petitions, stating that the same lacks merits.
13. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
these revision petitions are filed challenging the common
order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector,
contending that without deciding the issues, the matters
were remanded to the RDO. On perusing the impugned
common order passed by the Joint Collector, it is seen that
the procedure contemplated under the Act, has not been
followed while issuing 38(E) Certificate. Further, in the order
dated 03.02.1984 passed by the RDO, it is clear that an
application was filed by Koheda villagers for correction of
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
final record of tenancy and patta certificate was issued
under Section 38(E) of the Act. However, it is not known as
to who has filed the application for correction of tenancy
records, and under what authority of law. Further, in the
said order it was held that as per the guidelines issued by
the Collector, the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, has conducted
local enquiry and prepared the tenancy register as per
physical possession of the PTs. No objections were received
on the register prepared by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar.
Hence, it was observed that the record prepared by the
Tahsildar showing the survey number and extent on which
they had possession was accepted in to. Therefore, the
tenancy records were corrected under Rule 3(2) of the Rules
1956, and a finding was given that tenancy record was
changed based on some guidelines issued by the Collector,
and record prepared by the Tahsildar, as per the
possessions and no mention was made as to the names that
have been corrected. Reliance was placed in the order dated
02.05.2018 passed by this Court in CRP.Nos.1552 of 2015
and batch, whereunder, it was observed that once the
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
original PT register entries are clear, there could be no change
as held in Sada Vs. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad 3.
14. It is settled law that the interest of PT continues to be
operable and subsisting so long as protected tenancy is not
validly terminated as recognized by law, irrespective of
possession of land in question. Further, it is also held by
various Courts that even if the PT has lost his possession,
without there being valid determination of his status as
protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of
protections under the Act.
15. Reverting to the facts in the cases on hand, it is noted
that the subject lands were converted to non agricultural
lands and sold to third parties, resulting in creation of third
party interests, and most of the sales on the subject lands
took place after the year 1993 i.e., when the litigation on
rights over subject lands took place. Thereafter, in view of
the direction issued by this Court vide order dated
02.05.2018 in CRP.No.1544 of 2015 and batch, the appeals
LAWS(APH) 1962-9-6
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
were allowed, remanding back the matters to the RDO for
fresh determination by affording opportunity to the parties.
16. That being so, it is clear that the specific contention of
revision petitioners is that the certificates under Section
38(E) were issued to villagers of Koheda Village, whereas, in
the said certificates, the survey numbers were different and
that they are in the possession in the different of survey
numbers, as such, some of the PT holders represented
before the Tahsildar, for correction of entries and filed
affidavits in this regard, basing on which the Collector,
directed the Tahsildar to rectify the entries, and admittedly,
the respondents herein sold away the property in which they
are originally in possession and the same would show that
there is acceptance of change of entries in the PT register
and the same was result of acting upon the changes made
in PT register records. Therefore, the Joint Collector, ought
to have verified the records with regard to original tenancy
register and subsequent amendments made in the PT
register. Further, the Joint Collector ought to have verified
the records as to how many PT holders filed application
before the concerned authority for rectification of entries
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
and without specifying the said aspects, the Joint Collector
simply remanded the matters to the RDO, without
discussing the material on record.
17. In view of the above discussion and on considering the
circumstances of these cases, these revision petitions are
disposed of, setting aside the impugned common order
dated 31.08.2019 and remanding the matters to the Joint
Collector with a direction to dispose of the appeals within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order, only after duly verifying the records thoroughly
and validly covering all aspects pertaining to original PT
register entries, subsequent entries made thereof, and also
with regard to the affidavits filed by parties for correction of
entries. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 25.03.2025
PT
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D COMMON ORDER IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1160, 1161, 1162, 1163,
1164 AND 567 OF 2020
Date : 25.03.2025
PT
