Point of Law : Sec.38-E (2) entitles protected tenant even after he obtained a certificate under Sec.38E to seek restoration of possession, and legislature never intended to put any limitation/time limit for same by linking date of issuance of ownership certificate to date when application for restoration of possession was sought under said provision. Concept of laches/delay has no application at all having regard to beneficial legislation intended to protect tenants and their successors.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant herein challenging the order dt.10.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.17103 of 2021 by the learned single Judge.

2. In the said Writ Petition, it was the case of Writ Petitioner that his father Late Voggu Chinna Mallaiah was the protected tenant of the land in Sy.Nos.414, 415, 416 and 417 of Tummalur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; in recognition of his tenancy rights of inam land, his name was included in the Protected Tenancy Register and he was issued Certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 23.07.1975 of an extent of Acs.50.29 gts. declaring him as absolute owner of this land; and that petitioner’s father was in enjoyment of the said land till his death on 21.02.2000.

3. Thereafter, the appellant and 4 other persons as his legal heirs succeeded to the Tenancy Rights of late Voggu Chinna Mallaiah. He also conducted that a panchanama was conducted on 11.9.2013 by the revenue Officials and appellant and other legal heirs were found to be in possession only to the extent of Ac.25-14 ½ gts and they are not in possession of the remaining extent covered by the certificate under Sec.38-E of the Act.

4. He contended that since the father of the appellant died without initiating proceedings under the proviso to Sec.38-E (2) of the Act, the land admeasuring Ac.25.14 ½ gts remained in possession of the unauthorized person and appellant and other legal heirs of the original Protected Tenant are deprived of benefits under the Act. Thus appellant contended that Acs.25.14 ½ gts. was in illegal occupation of third parties depriving the appellant and other legal heirs of enjoyment to the entire extent of land covered by the certificate under Sec.38-E of the Act and they have been compelled to cultivate only other extents.

5. The appellant alleged that himself and other legal heirs filed application before the Tahsildar under Section 38-E(2) read with Section 40 of the Act to restore physical possession on the land to an extent of Acs.25.14 ½ gts and to recognize them as illegal heirs of the original protected tenant. He also contended that the Tahsildar refused to receive the application under Sections 38-E(2) and 40 of the Act, 1950 when it was sought to be given to him on 01.04.2021.

6. He stated that he then filed an application before the District Collector through an Advocate requesting to forward the application and to direct the Tahsildar to dispose of the same. But, since no steps were taken by the District Collector, the above Writ Petition was filed.

7. He therefore sought a relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in not accepting the application of the appellant and his family members under Section 38-E(2) and Section 40 of the Act for seeking succession and restoration of possession of the said land in Sy.Nos. 414, 415, 416 and 417 of Tummaluru Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and to direct respondent nos.2 and 3 to receive the said application dt.01.04.2021.

8. At the stage of admission, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 10.08.2021 on the ground of delay in laches on the part of the appellant in seeking a statutory remedy under Section 38-E(2) and Section 40 of the Act only on 01.04.2021 and not prior thereto.

9. Admittedly, Section 38-E(2) of the Act deals with the power of Tahsildar to restore possession of the land to the person who has been issued Certificate under Section 38-E of the Act recognizing his protected tenancy right and which is in the occupation of a third-party.

10. In Sada and Ors. vs. The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and Ors. 1987(2) ALT 749 (FB), a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under:

“It is clear from S.38-E that it i