Point of Law: Protected tenants - Restoration of possession of lands - Application filed by appellants/petitioners for restoration under Section 32 of Tenancy Act, were far beyond reasonable time and lacked bonafides.

JUDGMENT :

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2018, dismissing WP.No.16546 of 2005.

2. The matter arises under Section 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’) in connection with the claim of the legal heirs of the protected tenants for restoration of possession of lands. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge.

3. The relevant facts of the case, necessary to decide the present appeal are as follows. On 14.10.2000, a petition was filed by the writ petitioners in Proceeding No.B/3948/2000, before the Mandal Revenue Officer/respondent No.2 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, claiming that they are tenants in respect of land covered by Sy.Nos.58, 59, 66, 658, 659 and 660 of Yellareddyguda, Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the schedule lands’). Their father, Vorla Ramachandra Reddy, was a tenant of the schedule lands along with one Dudigalla Mallaiah and both of them were equal shareholders and cultivating tenants as defined under the Tenancy Act. Vorla Ramachandra Reddy expired on 14.02.1979 and till his demise, his status remained that of a tenant. Another petition was filed by one Sri Lakshmi Narayana and three others claiming inter alia that they were the successors of Dudigalla Mallaiah, who, allegedly, was 50% share holder of the protected tenancy rights in respect of the schedule lands. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) passed an order dated 04.04.2001 in proceeding No.B/3948/2000, granting succession in respect of the schedule lands and declaring the petitioners No.1 to 4 as the successors of Vorla Ramachandra Reddy and the petitioner No.5, as the successor of Dudigalla Mallaiah.

4. On the strength of the said succession order dated 04.04.2001, the petitioners filed an application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act before the MRO registered as proceedings No.B/1542/2001in respect of the schedule lands, admeasuring Ac.42.23 guntas in Sy.Nos.58, 59, 66 and 658 of Kapra village. Thirteen persons were arrayed as respondents in the aforesaid petition. It appears that the respondents No.9 to 13 therein, on receiving notices, did not appear or contest the case. Respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 8 appeared through their respective counsel and filed a counter on 18.08.2001, admitting the claim of the petitioners that they were the successors-in-title of the original protected tenants in respect of the schedule lands. They admitted that the petitioners had been in possession of the aforesaid land since a long time and they had no objection to restoration of possession thereof to them, as per the protected tenant rights. Resultantly, the MRO passed an order dated 07.09.2011, restoring physical possession of Ac.40.33 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.59, 66, 658 and part of Sy.No.58 under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act in favour of the petitioners. However, land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.58, that was covered by built up houses and possessed by one S.E. Srinivas, was deleted since it appears that the petitioners did not press their claim in respect of the said parcel of land.

5. Subsequently, on receiving a representation dated 04.10.2001 submitted by S.E. Srinivas stating that land to the extent of Ac.7.32 guntas situated in Sy.No.658 had already been converted into non-agriculture land and HUDA had also approved a layout in the year 1991 and the said lands hae been sold by the respondents to one Sri C. Santhu, S/o. China Thambi, S. Vishvanatham etc., through a registered sale document dated 09.06.1997, the MRO passed an order dated 11.10.2001 in proceedings No.B/1542/2001. The MRO issued an Errata in the captioned proceedings, clarifying that land measuring Ac.8.30 guntas in Sy.No.658 should be read instead of Ac.16.22 guntas in Sy.No.658, on the premise that the restoration orders d