THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.795/2013 & 730/2014

COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis and parties involved in these revision petitions are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. These revision petitions are filed being aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2012 passed in Case No.F2/1584/2008 on the file of the Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy District, which was filed under Section 90 of the AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 06.02.2008 passed in File No.A/5299/2007 by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.266, admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas, situated at Tule Kalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Case No.F2/1584/2008 filed CRP.No.795 of 2013 against the appellant and respondent No.5 therein ; and the respondent No.5 therein filed CRP.No.730 of 2014 against the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in Case No.F2/1584/2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘appeal’).

5. The brief facts as averred before the trial Court are that the appellant - A.Madhava Reddy, had purchased land in Survey No. 266 admeasuring 4.29 guntas, located in Tule Kalan Village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2005. The vendor, Batthula Godamma, was recorded as the lawful pattedar, and the transaction was duly mutated in the name of appellant. Possession was claimed to be uninterrupted, peaceful, and agriculturally developed since the date of purchase. Meanwhile, earlier proceedings had recorded the names of other individuals as protected tenants. However, they had allegedly surrendered their tenancy rights via proceedings dated 30.09.2005 under Section 19 of the Act. This surrender was officially accepted, and their names were rounded off in the tenancy register, reinforcing the position of appellant that no protected tenancy rights subsisted thereafter. Contrarily, the respondents who are descendants of one Nagani Venka (also referred to as Venkaiah) asserted tenancy rights by claiming to be legal heirs of the original protected tenant. They secured succession orders from the MRO, Ibrahimpatan, under Section 40 of the Act in File No.A/4863/2005 dated 21.02.2006, and sought possession under Section 32(1) vide File No. B/6700/2005.

6. The appellant challenged both actions before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector, upon appeals (File Nos.F2/5040/2006 and F2/5039/2006), set aside both succession and possession orders, and held that the Mandal Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide questions of legal heirship for tenancy succession and directed the respondents to approach a competent civil Court. Subsequently, the respondents filed O.S.No.170 of 2007 before the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatan, which was decreed in their favour, declaring them as legal heirs of Late Nagani Venka. However, this decree did not specify survey numbers or tenancy succession in the precise terms, as required under the Act. Despite that, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatan, issued fresh orders dated 06.02.2008 in File No.A/5299/2007, granting succession and directing restoration of possession based on the said civil decree, and without verifying prior appellate orders that had already invalidated such relief.

7. The appellant contended before the trial Court that the Tahsildar failed to issue mandatory notices to affected parties, including himself ; that the orders were passed in a hasty manner within 21 days, violating procedural norms ; that the Tahsildar contradicted his own observations by granting possession and succession despite acknowledging registered ownership and mutation of appellant ; that the decree from the civil Court was misused to circumvent appellate rulings, and succession of tenancy rights was improperly inferred ;