Back
2021 Supreme(Telangana) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, J.
B. Malla Reddy and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 14924, 15031 of 2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : L. Harish.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 40 of the Act, 1950, the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and the Civil Court in deciding claims of succession and recognizing individuals as protected tenants is distinct. The court emphasized that petitioners must first assert their right to succeed to tenancy through a civil law remedy before seeking relief under Section 40 of the Act, 1950.
Headnote:
Section 40 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Lineal Descendants' Entitlement - Sections 40(1) and 99(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 1950, which recognizes the right of heirs to succeed to protected tenancy, and Section 99, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on any issue settled, decided, or dealt with by the authorities under the Act. The court highlighted the distinction between the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and the Civil Court in deciding claims of succession and recognizing individuals as protected tenants. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioners must first assert their right to succeed to tenancy through a civil law remedy before seeking relief under Section 40 of the Act, 1950.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed by lineal descendants of protected tenants, seeking recognition as protected tenants and to secure Section 38-E certificates under Section 40 of the Act, 1950. The petitioners claimed entitlement to be shown as protected tenants and to secure Section 38-E certificates, alleging inaction by the District Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and the Civil Court in deciding claims of succession and recognizing individuals as protected tenants is distinct. It held that the petitioners must first assert their right to succeed to tenancy through a civil law remedy before seeking relief under Section 40 of the Act, 1950. The court dismissed the writ petitions, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out civil law remedy, subject to the law of limitation.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of lineal descendants to claim devolving of tenancy rights and to be recognized as protected tenants, as well as the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and the Civil Court in deciding claims of succession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 40(1) and 99(2) of the Act, 1950, which clarified the distinction between the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and the Civil Court in deciding claims of succession and recognizing individuals as protected tenants.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to work out civil law remedy, subject to the law of limitation.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court clarified that under Section 40 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the jurisdiction of revenue authorities and civil courts is distinct concerning claims of succession and recognition as protected tenants. Revenue authorities are responsible for verification and record amendments, while questions of legal succession must be decided by civil courts (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that claims of succession cannot be decided solely by revenue authorities. Instead, individuals claiming rights as heirs must seek a declaration from a civil court. Only after obtaining such a declaration can they pursue recognition under Section 40 of the Act (!) (!) .
-
The decision highlighted that the scope of Section 40 declares the heritability of protected tenancy rights but does not empower revenue authorities to adjudicate disputes of succession. Such disputes are within the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly regarding legitimacy and familial relationships (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the protected tenancy register may reflect names of certain individuals based on specific circumstances, but such entries do not conclusively establish legal succession or rights. The actual status of certificates and land alienations must be verified through proper legal channels (!) .
-
The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners must first assert their rights through civil law remedies and obtain necessary declarations before seeking recognition as protected tenants under the Act. Until then, their claims are misconceived (!) .
-
The court reaffirmed that the procedure for amending land records or tenancy registers is separate from the adjudication of succession disputes, which remain within the civil court’s jurisdiction. The revenue authorities' role is limited to verification and record adjustments, not legal determination of inheritance rights (!) (!) .
-
The court advised that the petitioners are free to pursue civil remedies to establish their succession rights, but until such rights are legally recognized, their applications under Section 40 cannot be granted (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
ORDER :
1. These two writ petitions are filed with identical prayers praying to direct the respondent No. 4 to initiate legal proceedings on the application filed under Section 40 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act, 1950’). As the issue for consideration being the same, they are considered and disposed of by the common order.
2. Heard Sri L. Harish, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader, office of the learned Advocate General for the respondents.
3. In W.P. No. 14924 of 2021, petitioners claim that they are lineal descendants of Ram Reddy, who was protected tenant of land to an extent of Acs. 4.12 guntas spread over Survey Nos. 163, 164 and 165 (old Survey Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79) of Kummera Village. According to petitioners, late Ram Reddy was having four children, late B. Venkat Reddy, late B. Anti Reddy, late B. Janga Reddy and late B. Ram Reddy. Eldest son late B. Venkat Reddy died at very young age. Late B. Anti Reddy being the next eldest son, his name was recorded as protected tenant after the death of Ram Reddy. Petitioners are sons of B. Kista Reddy. Petitioners claim that on the above extent of land, they are also entitled to be shown as protected tenants and to secure Section 38-E certificate. Claiming so, they made an application in May, 2021, acknowledged by the office of the District Collector on 17.5.2021. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.
4. In W.P. No. 15031 of 2021, petitioners claim that Talla Narsimhuhi (1st petitioner), late Talla Anta Goud, late Talla Ramaswamy and late Talla Anjaiah were children of protected tenant. Petitioner No. 2 is son of late Anta Goud, petitioner No. 3 is son of late Ramaswamy and petitioner No. 4 is son of late Anjaiah. After death of protected tenant, being eldest of sons, name of Talla Anta Goud was shown as protected tenant on land to an extent of Acs. 4.12 guntas in Survey Nos. 163, 164 and 165 (old Survey Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79) of Kummera Village. As lineal descendants of protected tenant, all the family members are entitled to be declared as protected tenants of the total extent of land standing in the name of late Talla Anta Goud. Claiming so, they made application in May, 2021, acknowledged by the office of the District Collector on 17.5.2021. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that late B. Anti Reddy and late Talla Anta Goud were surviving elder family members on the day when protected tenancy register was opened and therefore instead of reflecting the names of all sons, for convenience only the eldest surviving sons of protected tenants were shown. Merely because the elder surviving sons names are reflected in the records, it cannot be said that they alone are to be treated as protected tenants and the claims of other family members as protected tenants cannot be ignored. Learned Counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that the District Collector ought to have acted upon the applications submitted by the petitioners and ought to have taken remedial steps to grant the relief prayed by petitioners.
6. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, Section 40 of the Act, 1950 enables the lineal descendant to record his name as a protected tenant and the claim made by petitioners is in compliance with the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 1950.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that the issue arising out of the provisions of the Act, 1950 is to be decided by the revenue authorities only and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted in view of Section 99 of the Act, 1950. Therefore, only the revenue authority has to consider such application. Therefore, there is no requirement to seek declaration about their entitlement to be treated as lineal descendants of the protected tenants and to seek appropriate relief.
8. Learned Special Government Pleader contends that the issue, whether petitio
