ORDER :

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.

Order in Proceedings No.B/169/2019 dated 08.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3 - the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ghatkesar, Medchal District, is questioned in this writ petition as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2.1. The record filed in the writ petition reveals that respondent No.4 - the Secretary, Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board, Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, approached respondent No.3 and furnished list of Bhoodan lands of Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District, to incorporate the land admeasuring Acs.20-00 in Survey Nos.1080 and 1084 situated in Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as Bhoodan Lands.

2.2. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued a Memo bearing No.BE1/900/2006 dated 23.09.2006, to the then Panchayat Secretary, Edulabad Village, to record the subject land in the revenue records as Bhoodan Land. The Panchayat Secretary, Edulabad Village complied with the orders of respondent No.3 recording the subject land as Bhoodan Land.

2.3. Aggrieved by the Memo No.BE1/900/2006 dated 23.09.2006 issued by respondent No.3 dated 23.09.2006, W.P. No.15223 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner Nos.1, 2 herein and two others viz., (1) Mr. Udari Satyanarayana, (2) Mr. Udari Shiv Kumar, (3) Mr. Udari Krishna Murthy and (4) Mr. Udari Sudershan who are the sons of late Mr. Udari Laxmaiah, resident of Tenugudem, Hamlet of Korremal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 20.06.2019 setting aside the impugned Memo in respect of the subject land with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh. In compliance of the same, respondent No.3 issued notices to the petitioners and others by calling upon them to file their claims and objections along with documents; and the petitioners filed their written arguments. Upon considering the claims of the petitioners and their contentions, impugned order in Proceedings No.B/169/2019 dated 08.06.2022 was passed by respondent No.3.

2.4. The case of the petitioners is that sale certificate was issued to their father Mr. Udari Laxmaiah under Section 38(6) of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘Tenancy Act 1950’) on 27.05.1967 in File No.H/2213/67 in respect of the land in Survey Nos.1080 and 1084, and another Certificate in File No.H/2551/67 in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.1083 and 1087 on the same date. Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 presupposes existence of protected tenancy rights right from 1950. Assuming that Raja Triyambak Nandlal was the owner and pattadar of the subject land in 1954, the father of the petitioners who was protected tenant of the same much prior to that had a pre-existing right. Section 2(j) of the Telangana Bhoodan and Gramadan Act 1965 (for short ‘Bhoodan Act’) defines who is owner which also includes a protected tenant. In view of the said provision, the alleged donation by Raja Triyambak Nandlal and consequential acceptance by respondent No.3 is void ab initio. The transfer of land is illegal in view of Section 36(6) and 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 and Section 2(j)(4) of the Bhoodan Act. As alleged donation on 26.01.1954 itself is void, the consequential relinquishment / rajinama made on 17.03.1954 and its acceptance by respondent No.3 on 26.03.1963 are equally void.

3.1. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit contending that that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.15223 of 2007 dated 20.06.2019, W.P. No.162929 of 2020 dated 14.12.2020 and C.C. No.833 of 2021 dated 17.06.2022 , notices were issued to the petitioners by respondent No.4. A detailed enquiry was conducted.

3.2. Basing on the documentary evidence available on record, impugned order dated 08.06.2022 was passed directing the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance; as the subject lands are recorded in