Revenue authorities cannot recognize succession claims based on ex-parte decrees if necessary parties are not joined, as such decrees do not bind those parties.

ORDER :

G.RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - appellants aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2019 passed in Appeal No.F2/321/2018 by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, where under the order dated 29.08.2017 passed in File No.D/290/2016 dated 29.08.2017 by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, rejecting the claim of the petitioners herein for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy rights was confirmed.

2. The petitioners filed an application dated 01.12.2015 for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy Rights in respect of Survey Nos.101, 102 and 105 to 112, totally admeasuring Ac.13-16 guntas situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal of Rangareddy District based on the decree dated 13.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District declaring them as legal heirs of Balguri alias Oopari Laxmaiah.

3. As per their contention, their ancestor Sri Oopari (Balguri Laxmaiah, S/o.Balaiah) along with Gudala Shivaiah, S/o.Ramanna and Gudala Adavaiah, S/o.Sayanna were the protected tenants of the above extent of Ac.13-16 guntas of land situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal of Rangareddy District as per the certificate issued to them under Sections 35 & 37 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short "Tenancy Act"), 1950. Oopari Laxmaiah died on 27.08.1963 leaving behind his three sons namely Narsimha, Yadaiah and Swamy. Out of them, Yadaiah and Swamy died and the petitioners were the legal representatives of Yadaiah and Swamy. The petitioners along with other joint protected tenants Gudala Shivaiah and Adavaiah were cultivating the suit lands, in which they were having one-third share. They also filed an application under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy rights before the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short "MRO"), Rajendranagar Mandal. The same was dealt in C.No.B/216/2005 and the said application was dismissed observing that the petitioners would need to approach the Competent Civil Court for grant of succession and that the MRO had no jurisdiction to grant succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The appeal filed against it was also dismissed by the Joint Collector in File No.F2/5652/2006 on 28.04.2007 directing the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.S.No.2567 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The same was decreed on 13.02.2008 declaring them as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmaiah. Having been declared as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmaiah by the Civil Court, they filed the present application for grant of succession under Section 40 and for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District vide order in File No.D/290/2016 dated 29.08.2017 rejected the application filed by the petitioners.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District under Section 90 of the AP(TA) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Joint Collector, Rangareddy District vide Case No.F2/321/2018 dated 04.05.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application by the revenue authorities, the petitioners preferred this revision.

6. Heard Sri C.Damod