IMPORTANT POINTS
Land held by a protected tenant cannot be sold to third parties until and unless it is offered to the protected tenant and he refuses the offer.
Protected tenancy does not terminate on death of the protected tenant. It devolves on his heirs and legal representatives.
Protected tenancy also does not terminate on loss of possession. The protected tenant or his heirs and legal representatives can claim possession.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.4904/2006 and in Civil Revision Petition Nos.447 of 2007 and 448 of 2007 which were disposed of on the same date in terms of the judgment and order in Civil Revision Petition No.4904 of 2006. Since the High Court had considered Civil Revision Petition No.4904 of 2006 as the lead matter, the appeal arising therefrom is also taken as the lead matter by us.

2. One Teegala Shivaiah was a Protected Tenant in respect of agricultural lands bearing Survey No.359(old) corresponding to Survey No.121(new) situated at Koheda Village (hereinafter referred to as the said land). Wasool Baqui as regards the said land for the year 1954 and certificate under Sections 35 and 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) record the name of Teegala Shivaiah as Protected Tenant. The fact that said Teegala Shivaiah was a Protected Tenant is not disputed. The respondents are the heirs and successors of said Teegala Shivaiah who died sometime in the year 1964.

3. The land holders who were recorded owners of the said land sold the said land to various buyers who in turn further effected sales and now appellants claim to be having ownership rights in respect of the said land. Various sale deeds are produced on record to prove the chain of transfers which are not being gone into presently and we proceed on the footing that those deeds in respect of the said land are in favour of the appellants.

4. Though the Protected Tenant had died sometime in 1964, the respondents moved an application under Section 40 of the Act before the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 2001 praying for grant of Succession Certificate in their favour. The notices were thereafter issued to interested persons and the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District by his order dated 27.04.2004 granted Succession Certificate in respect of the said land in favour of the respondents.

5. Soon thereafter the respondents filed an application under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of possession of the said land. Notices were issued to the appellants and in proceedings initiated thereafter the Deputy Collector Mandal Revenue Officer, Hyathnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District by his order dated 13.07.2004 directed restoration of the said land and that the physical possession be handed over to the respondents. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2004, possession was restored in favour of the respondents on 30.08.2004.

6. The appellants preferred appeals challenging the aforesaid orders dated 27.04.2004 and 13.07.2004. By a common order dated 22.07.2006, the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District allowed these appeals. As regard the locus standi of the appellants to challenge the aforesaid orders, it was held that the appellants were neither the original land holders nor the Protected Tenants and as such had no locus standi in the matter. Even after recording such finding, the Joint Collector-II Ranga Reddy District proceeded to consider merits of the matter. It was observed that though Teegala Shivaiah was the Protected Tenant in respect of the said land, the proceedings granting succession in favour of the respondents were not sustainable as there was no evidence about subsistence of protected tenancy as on the date when the Protected Tenant died and that since long time had elapsed since his demise, succession could not be determined. It was also held that Mandal Revenue Officer was not competent to recognize succession to tenancy.

7. The respondents preferred Civil Revision Petition No.4910 of 2006 in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad against the aforesaid order dated 22.07.2006 setting aside the order of Mandal Revenue Officer dated 27.0