Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 127
2007 (2) ALD 735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
S. ANANDA REDDY, J.
Shajadi Begum (died) by LRs. and others - - Appellants
Versus
Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others - - Respondent
C.R.P. No.4630 of 2004
Decided on : 2nd February, 2007
Advocates appeared :
M. Raja Malia Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners;
M. Rama Rao, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Headnote:
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Section 19, 38-D, 40, 89 and 91 – Compromise - Executed Pursuant - Sale Deeds – Pattadar - Respondents 3 to 5 herein filed an application before Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 40 of the Act, seeking to substitute their names as legal heirs of the original protected tenants in respect of Sy.Nos.742 and 743 in an extent – Respectively situated in Village of District – It was their case that father of 3rd respondent herein one was protected tenant in respect of the above lands. After his death, the 3rd respondent, who is his son and respondents 4 and 5 who are his grand-sons are entitled to get their names entered as legal heirs and successors – It was also stated that either father of the 3rd respondent or the respondents 3 to 5 have ever surrendered tenancy rights in respect of the above lands to the pattadar, therefore, they are entitled to get their names entered by recognizing them as successors and application authority accepted t said contention, on the ground that the material on record shows that the protected tenancy rights of appellants before him who are the present respondents, were not terminated in accordance with law, and even the landlord failed to act as per the provisions of Section 38-D of Act in disposing of lands of respondents 3 to 5 in respect of land of an extent said action is null and void, and accordingly allowed appeal – Aggrieved by that original pattadar as well as subsequent purchasers have come up with present revision – Held, Learned Counsel for respondents sought to sustain the impugned order judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for respondents may not be of any assistance to respondents 3 to 5 in present case, since admittedly they have entered into a written compromise where they have agreed to give up their rights in part of the property under tenancy while getting full rights over larger part of property under tenancy – In fact, sale deeds were got executed pursuant to said compromise in though compromise was recorded after only one of three successors who was a party to the earlier proceedings along with his two sons has come up with this application – From conduct of respondents 3 to 5, it is clear that they had the benefit of confirmation of full rights with reference land in while surrendering their tenancy rights in respect – Having got benefit it is not open to them to revert back and make a claim to get illegal benefit – Further very 3rd respondent who is a party to the earlier proceedings has signed as a witness in agreement that was entered between 1st petitioner with the other petitioners where 1st petitioner has agreed to sell said property for a valuable consideration, and pursuant to which even registered sale deeds were executed in petitioners 2 to 4 – Civil revision petition is allowed.
2. Respondents 3 to 5 herein filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Toopran under Section 40 of the Act, seeking to substitute their names as legal heirs of the original protected tenants in respect of Sy.Nos.742 and 743 in an extent of Ac.10.32 gts. and 19.30 gts. respectively, situated in Toopran Village and Mandal of Medak District. It was their case that the father of the 3rd respondent herein one Jangam Muthaiah was the protected tenant in respect of the above lands. After his death, the 3rd respondent, who is his son and respondents 4 and 5 who are his grand-sons (sons of 3rd respondent) are entitled to get their names entered as legal heirs and successors. It was also stated that either Muthaiah, the father of the 3rd respondent or the respondents 3 to 5 have ever surrendered the tenancy rights in respect of the above lands to the pattadar, therefore, they are entitled to get their names entered, by recognizing them as successors, and therefore, the application.
3. In the said application, notice was given to the 1st petitioner Smt. Shajadi Begum, who is the wife of Md Nazer Ali, who is the original pattadar of the land, and thereafter, the matter was heard by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Mandal Revenue Officer referred to the earlier proceedings that had taken place before the then District Revenue Officer, Medak at Sangareedy, dated 3-10-1978 in Case No.C3/11625/1977, which was filed by the pattadar for recovery of rents against the tenants (3rd respondent and his two brothers), where a compromise memo was filed between the pattadar and the protected tenants and the matter was compromised. As per which, the landowner and pattadar agreed to give the land in an extent of Ac.l9.30 gts. in Sy.No.743 to the tenants with absolute rights, while the tenants have agreed to give up their rights in favour of the landowner in respect of an extent of Ac.l0.32 in Sy.No.742. In fact, pursuant to the said compromise, the tenants have obtained registered documents in Document Nos.154/80, 155/80, 156/80 and 1~7 /80 in favour of the three sons and the wife of one of the sons of late Jangam Muthaiah, the original protected tenant. Therefore, it was felt by the Mandal Revenue Officer that in view of the said compromise and settlement of the rights between the parties, which was recorded by the authority under the provisions of the Act, the present application is not maintainable. Therefore, an endorsement was made to that effect by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Toopran.
4. Aggrieved by that, respondents 3 to 5 herein preferred appeal before the Joint Collector. Before the Joint Collector, they have disputed the endorsement, on the ground that there was no termination of protected tenancy rights of the respondents 3 to 5 or their predecessor in interest, and therefore, the said endorsement made by the Mandal Revenue Officer is illegal and unsustainable, and hence, sought for setting aside the said order and also sought for a direction to the appropriate authority for recording the names of the respondents 3 to 5 as successors, in the Tenancy Register.
5. The appellate authority accepted the said contention, on the ground that the material on record shows that the protected tenancy rights of the appellants before him who are the present respondents, were not terminated, in accordance with law, and even the landlord failed to act as per the provisions of Section 38-D of the Act in disposing of the lands in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 in respect of the land of an exten
