THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.503 of 2009

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 02.08.2008 passed in Case No.F1/03/2001 by the Joint Collector at Mahabubnagar, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/appellants claimed rights over land measuring Ac.14-21 guntas in Survey No.13 of Udandapur Village, Jadcherla Mandal. It is submitted that the original protected tenant (P.T.) of the land was Kurva Beerappa, father of petitioner No.1/appellant No.1, and that he was issued an ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is contended that a registered sale deed (Doc.No.166/77 dated 05-02-1977) allegedly executed by Beerappa in favor of respondents No.3 and 4 (sons of one Bhagiratha Bai) was forged. The appellants claimed that Beerappa had only daughters and never sold the land, asserting that the sale deed was created fraudulently by impersonation. The petitioners requested the restoration of possession and annulment of the sale deed, as per Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, which renders certain sales void within 8 years of ownership rights being conferred.

3. On the other hand, respondents No.3 and 4 stated that the sale was lawful and made by the rightful P.T., Kurva Beerappa @ Siddapuram Beerappa S/o Yellaiah, not Kurva Beerappa S/o Balaiah, through whom the appellants were claiming. It is further stated that the appellants were not legal heirs of the original P.T. and therefore lacked locus standi. They also emphasized that they had been in continuous possession since the sale in 1977 and that the appellants had not challenged the rejection of their application to amend the P.T.’s name in the revenue records.

4. Upon examination of the records and contentions, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal holding that ownership rights in respect of the suit land were conferred on Kurva Beerappa S/o Yellaiah, the original P.T., under Section 38-E with effect from 01-01-1973. It was further noted that the sale to respondents No.3 and 4 was executed on 05-02-1977 for Rs.10,000/- and possession was delivered accordingly. The Joint Collector observed that the appellants failed to produce substantial evidence proving dispossession in the year 1974 or to establish a legal heirship link with the rightful P.T. The claims questioning the authenticity of the sale deed were deemed civil in nature and advised to be pursued before a competent Civil Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Mohd. Gulam Rasool, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Joint Collector is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the established provisions of law under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. He further submitted that the Joint Collector failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 32 of the Act and dismissed the application arbitrarily without properly appreciating the legal and factual aspects of the case and that, under Section 32, a Protected Tenant cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, and any such dispossession must be preceded by an order from the Tahsildar. In the instant case, the respondents failed to follow the prescribed procedure and did not produce any evidence to prove lawful dispossession, relying merely on a registered sale deed purportedly executed by the protected tenant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, any alienation or transfer of land by a Protected Tenant within eight years from the date of conferment of ownership rights under Section 38-E is null and void. In the present case, the registered sale deed set up by the respondents was admittedly