IMPORTANT POINT
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging decisions made under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy Act, 1950, as per Section 99, which excludes such matters from civil adjudication.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14.09.2022 in I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at L.B. Nagar.

2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021, against the respondents, under Order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard arguments of both sides at length and perused the entire evidence on record.

4. Respondents No. 1 to 3/Plaintiffs mainly contended that they have filed a suit vide O.S. No. 508 of 2021, for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and to declare the document Nos. 86 of 2010, dated 31.12.2009 and 307 of 2011, dated 29.01.2011, as null and void and not binding on them. They also stated that they clearly pleaded the cause of action in several paragraphs of the plaint and also paid the Court fee as per the market value certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Gandipet Mandal. Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 has no application to the facts of the present case and hence the suit is not hit by the said Act. The trial Court rightly considered all the factors and dismissed the application.

5. Respondents No. 1 to 3 further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumanth Reddy and Others vs. Kamsali Nagamma, 1983 (1) ALT 199 while considering the scope of Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, held that where the relief sought in a suit is one which the special tribunal is incapable of granting, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. They also stated that they sought for declaration, which cannot be granted by a special tribunal, as such there is no reason to exclude the trial Court from trying that aspect. The question that falls under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act is an incidental question and it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

6. The facts of the case are that the sons of one Jettoji, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, for grant of sale certificate under Section 38-A of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.488, 489 and 490, measuring an extent of Acs. 5-09 gts, Acs. 2-35 gts and Ac. 1-21 gts respectively, situated at Manchirevula Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings No. G/956/1997, dated 30.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said Order Shaik Abood Bin Ali Ramzani, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. Considering the arguments of both sides, Joint Collector-II remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and observed that Revenue Divisional Officer, has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 38 of the A.P. (T.A.) Act. He also observed that before considering the sale deed purported to be in the year 1912, it is necessary to verify the genuinity of the document and in case of any doubt the same has to be referred to the Civil Court for comprehensive adjudication and accordingly remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.

7. The said Order was challenged in C.R.P. No. 5803 of 2008 and this Court confirmed the Order of the Joint Collector and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition on 10.04.2014, with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the Order by giving opportunity to both sides and also directed to implead the brother of respondent No. 3 therein, who filed an application for impleadment. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, considering the arguments of both sides and the material placed before him observed that Pentoji and others who are petitioners before him proved thei