IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that transactions involving agricultural land require prior permission under the Tenancy Act, and failure to obtain such permission renders the transaction void.

ORDER :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2019 in Case No.B2/1613/1995 passed by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District confirming the earlier orders passed by the Joint Collector dated 17.08.1996, the petitioners/appellants filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Joint Collector.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before the Court that necessitated the revision petitioners to file the present Civil Revision Petition are as under:

a) The petitioners’ grandfather late Mallesha purchased wet land admeasuring Ac.3.33 guntas in Sy.Nos.62, 63 and 64 of Thokatta Village from its owner and pattedar late B.V. Prakash Reddy and accordingly an agreement of sale was also entered into with him on 24.11.1960. The said agreement was entered into after Mr. B. Sathaiah and others, who were previously cultivating the suit schedule land as protected tenants declined the offer made by the pattedar to sell the said land to them and had vacated the said land voluntarily on 28.11.1960. The said surrender or decline of the offer made by the pattedar was entered in the pahani for the year 1960-61 denoting abandonment of their tenancy rights over the land in question by Sri B. Sathaiah and two others. The protected tenants surrendered their rights before the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West and the same was accepted by the Tahsildar.

b) As per the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, permissions under Section 47 of the Act was mandatory for alienation of land. The pattedar of the land B. V. Prakash Reddy made an application to the Tahsildar under Section 47 of the Act for the sale of the said land to Tahsildar, Hyderabad West in File No.A3/9134/62 claiming that there were no protected tenant as by that time the protected tenants had already abandoned their tenancy and abandoned the possession over the schedule land and late Mallesha was already inducted in possession. The said B. Sathaiah and his other partners also filed a petition before the Tahsildar West Hyderabad under Section 19 of the Act and the same was acknowledged by Tahsildar. In response to the said application under Section 47 of the Act issued a letter dated 16.05.1994 calling upon the said land holder Sri B.V. Prakash Reddy to furnish further details which authenticate that the process of obtaining prior permission under Section 47 of the Act was in motion and the sale deed was executed on 12.11.1964 by the land holder Sri B.V. Prakash Reddy and registered as document No.1789 of 1964 in favour of Alluri Mallesham and Alluri Parvathalu residents of Chinna Thokatta Village. Ever since 1960, the said Alluri Mallesham was in possession over the said lands and his name is reflected in the revenue records right from 1960 and he was asserting his right and after five years of his death, his legal heirs i.e., the petitioners and other respondents are in possession and cultivating the same.

c) The landlord Sri B.V. Prakash Reddy died and the alleged protected tenants also died on 11.06.1981. The so called protected tenants never made any claim over the land in question from 1960 till their death as they were aware that they had no right over the land in question. It was only in late 1985, the respondent Nos.24 to 26 claiming to be the legal heirs of one of the ex-protected tenant late B. Sathaiah filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Secunderabad under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and the same is pending for recovery of possession on the ground that they were the legal heirs of the deceased tenant B. Sathaiah. Respondent No.4 appeared before the Tahsildar and contested the matter and during the pendency of the said proceedings, for the first time respondent Nos.1 to 3 the alleged LRs of the alleged tenant produced a copy of ownership certificate alleged to have been iss