THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.5264 OF 2020

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not considering the representation made by the petitioners for issuance of sale certificate under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act of 1950’) in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.6.15 guntas in Sy.No.180, situated at Batasingaram, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘subject property’) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that originally, the father of petitioners 1 and 2, namely Gudu Saheb, and the father of petitioners 3 to 6, namely P. Buchaiah, were the protected tenants of the subject property. During their lifetime, the fathers of the petitioners cultivated the subject land, and their names were recorded as protected tenants in the revenue records. After the demise of Gudu Saheb and P. Buchaiah, the petitioners, being their legal heirs, are entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights under Section

40 of the Act of 1950.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners filed a petition for succession before the Mandal Revenue Officer/4th respondent. However, instead of granting succession, the 4^th respondent issued a memo dated 21.07.2000 in File No.B/688/2000, stating that “as per the order passed in File No.B1/2847/83, dated 24.11.1983, the names of the protected tenants (P.Ts) were deleted in respect of Sy. No. 180 only.” Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the fathers of the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 90 of the Act of 1950 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.F2/5130/2000.

4. The Joint Collector, vide proceedings dated 03.03.2001 in File No.F2/5130/2000, advised the fathers of the petitioners to file a civil suit for succession. Consequently, the fathers of the petitioners filed suits in O.S. No. 422 of 2006 and O.S. No. 423 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking a declaration that they are the successors of the original protected tenants. The said suits were decreed on 19.06.2006, declaring the fathers of the petitioners as successors. They also obtained proceedings under Section 32 before the 4^th respondent in File No.B/915/2007, dated 04.10.2008.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations dated 10.02.2020 and 27.07.2018 before the 3rd and 4th respondents, respectively, requesting the issuance of a sale certificate and for conducting a survey and fixing boundaries. Despite receiving and acknowledging these representations, no action has been taken by respondents 3 and 4. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for appropriate directions from this Court.

6. Opposing the above submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and upon instructions, submits that the names of the fathers of the petitioners as protected tenants were already deleted by the then M.R.O through proceedings in File No.B1/2847/83, dated 24.11.1983, in respect of Sy. No.180. He further submits that as the names of the protected tenants were deleted, there is no question of considering the representations of the petitioners, being legal heirs, and accordingly seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and upon examination of the material placed before this Court, since the representations of the petitioners dated 27.07.2018 and 10.02.2020 are still pending consideration before respondents 3 and 4, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to examine and consider the said representations of the petitioners strictly in acc