Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.MEENA KUMARI
S.Venkatareddy - Appellant
Versus
Joint Collector, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-09-02
Civil Matter - Civil Law - Andhra Pradesh Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 - AP Agricultural Land Rules, 1951 - Rule 2,Rule3,Rule 4 – Andhra Pradesh Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1956 - section 37-A - section 99 - sections 47 and 48 - section 38 (7) (a) - sections 149 and 150 - Petitioners herein have also filed their counters stating that one Women is pattadar and possessor of agricultural lands in Survey of village - Main contention advanced before second respondent is that on remand, husband of first respondent i. e., was not at all tenant and hence issuance of tenancy certificate in year 1975 without any enquiry is contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioners have denied fact that one Person and husband of first respondent were joint protected tenants of lands in Survey admeasuring 17 acres. It is also further contended before Revenue Divisional officer that no protected tenancy certificates were issued in their favor - It is also contended before authorities - Woffered to sell entire land to late father of petitioners and their late father has purchased the same for a valuable consideration and was put in possession of lands since date of purchase and they are in possession and enjoyment without any interruption - It is stated that as pattedar One women did not choose to file no objection petition before concerned authorities for mutation of name of late father of petitioners, late father of petitioners filed O. S. on file of District Munsif, west and South Taluk, Hyderabad and obtained decree against Smt. Ayesha Begum and basing on said decree, name of late father of petitioners has been mutated against subject lands by then Tahsildar as pattedar vide his proceedings and after death of father of petitioners, names of petitioners were mutated as pattedars against lands and since then, petitioners are in possession of lands - It is also stated by petitioners before authorities that tenants have rendered their rights in as per Khasra Pahanies of 1954 and there were no tenants after 1954 and hence issuance of protected tenancy certificates to respondents 4 to 6 ignoring and without considering all these facts is violative of the provisions of the Tenancy Act – Held, Court says that absence of any legal heir certificate or succession certificate, it has to be held that General Power of Attorney holder of fourth respondent - Assumes himself as son only for purpose of this litigation and there is no satisfactory reason for adopting name of as his father - In absence of any legal proof, claim of that he is son of a Person has no force - Even though this Court has felt that action could be initiated for perjury, taking a lenient view this Court felt that there is no need to contemplate such action - Material available on record, it shows that unofficial respondents 4 to 6 have not agitated their rights for possession and also they did not make any application under Section 36 of Tenancy act if really they are protected tenants under any of provisions of Tenancy act till 1975 - It is also not disputed by unofficial respondents that petitioners are in possession of land in question - It is also clear from the above discussion that even after being declared as protected tenants under Section 37-A of Tenancy act, unofficial respondents 4 to 6 have not agitated their rights for possession of lands from 1975. i. e. nearly for a period of 25 years - Certificates issued in favor of respondents 4 to 6 are held to be without any proper appreciation of material available on record and also contrary to records - It has to be held that original as well as appellate authority have acted illegally and without following procedure in passing orders – Court orders of Additional Revenue Divisional officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad west in No. LRW of first respondent in No. B4 of second respondent in proc. No. G/7894/82 dated 10- and of first respondent in Case No. F have been set aside - Civil Revision Petition Allowed
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (for short the Tenancy Act ) against the orders of the Joint Collector, ranga Reddy District in Case No. F2/2013/ 2000 dated 3-3-2001.
( 2 ) THIS Court while ordering Notice before admission of the CRP on 25-6-2001 granted status quo as to possession as on that day in CMP No. 11676 of 2001. Later, on 3-10-2001, the CRP was admitted. The petitioners alleging that the fourth respondent in the CRP has violated the said status quo orders granted by this Court, they have filed CC. No. 829 of 2002. Along with said Contempt Case, the CRP has also been posted before me for hearing. Both the counsel advanced their arguments in the crp also.
( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioners herein have filed the above appeal in Case No. F2/2013/2000 dated 3-3-2001 before the first respondent questioning the orders of the second respondent i. e. , Revenue Divisional Officer, chevella Division, Hyderabad dt. 10-5-2000 in Proceedings No. G/7894/82 in respect of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 49 to 54, 61 and 74 of Nanakramguda village, serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.
( 4 ) THE main case of the petitioners herein, who are the appellants before the Joint collector is that they are pattedars and possessors of the agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 49 to 54, 61 and 74 of nanakramguda village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the said lands from the original pattedar, namely, Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1954. According to the petitioners herein, there were no tenants in the subject lands at the time of its purchase, which is evident from the Khasra Pahanies of 1754-55. According to the petitioners, there seems to be manipulations in the Tenancy Register by the village Patwari, namely, Sri Ramchahder who was alleged to be one of the tenants and the names of respondents 4 to 6 herein have been incorporated in the Tenancy Register of 1958. In pursuance of such entries, respondents 4 to 6 have obtained ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the tenancy Act in the year 1975. It is also the case of the petitioners herein that the unofficial respondents nearly after a period of 15 years, filed an application for restoration of possession of the said land and the same has been entertained by the third respondent i. e. , Mandal Revenue officer, Serilingampally Mandal. The case of the petitioners is that some of the persons, who are alleged to be the tenants, filed application for restoration of possession and then only they came to know about the issuance of certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. The case of the petitioners is that though they are owners and possessors, of the land, the unofficial respondents have obtained certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950 without any notice to them and also without following the due process of law. As a result of the application made by the petitioners herein, the second respondent issued notices to all the concerned persons including the unofficial respondents 4 to 6 herein. On receipt of the notices, respondents 4 to 6 appeared before the second respondent and filed affidavits stating inter alia that they were never tenants in the lands in question and their names were incorporated in the tenancy register and that the certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950 were given without there being any requisition from them. It is also stated that the respondents 4 to 6 are not claiming any tenancy rights in view of the surrender of the lands. It is also further stated by the petitioners that the second respondent without considering all those affidavits confirmed the proceedings stating that the procedure for surrender of tenancy rights has not been followed and said statements have to be filed be
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
