THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3576 OF 2016

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2016 passed in Case No.F2/1768/2010 by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioners herein are the appellants in the appeal filed before the Joint Collector. The grandfather of petitioners, Malchalam Ramaiah is the original Protected Tenant (PT) of the lands in old Sy.Nos.70, 71, 72, 74, 75 and 76 admeasuring Ac.22.30 guntas situated at Narkhoda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The land, originally owned by Mir Abdul Ali, was jointly held by Malchalam Ramaiah and Poggaku Ramaiah as Protected Tenants. The grandfather of the original Protected Tenant died in 1969, leaving behind the petitioners’ father as the only legal heir. The petitioners’ father passed away in 1988 making the petitioners the legal heirs. As the lineal descendant, petitioners are entitled to succession under Section 40 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the ‘Act, 1950’).

3. The petitioners claim is supported by the PT certificate, which shows that petitioners were in possession of the land and cultivated it personally during the lifetime of original PT. The petitioners filed an application under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 on 3.11.2001, and the Tahsildar passed a succession order for half of the share in favour of 1^st appellant therein, vide proceedings dated 11.12.2001. However, the Tahsildar later revised the said order on 29.05.2004, and deleted petitioners’ names from the succession proceedings. This action is illegal, as the Tahsildar has no power to revise his own order. Furthermore, another proceeding under Section 32 of the Act, 1950, dated 14.06.2005, was passed in favor of respondents 2 to 7 therein, which is also liable to be set aside.

4. The respondents 4 to 7 therein denied the allegations made by the appellants, stating that they are false, baseless, and incorrect. The respondents claim that the appellants’ grandfather, Malchalam Ramaiah, was not the protected tenant of the land in question, and that the appellants have no right to claim succession. The respondents assert that their father, Pogaku Ramaiah, and their maternal grandfather, Malchalam Ramaiah alias Ramaswamy, were the joint protected tenants of the land. They claim that Malchalam Ramaiah alias Ramaswamy had no children of his own and had adopted the deceased respondent No.2 who is the daughter of elder brother of Malchalam Ramaiah. The respondents state that they had filed a petition under Section 40 of the Act, 1950, for succession in respect of the protected tenancy land. During the enquiry, several other persons claimed rights over the land, and the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted a local enquiry to determine the real persons who cultivated the land.

5. The local enquiry revealed that Pogaku Ramaiah and Malchalam Ramaiah alias Ramaswamy were the protected tenants who cultivated the land. The enquiry also revealed that the appellants’ claim was false, and that the appellant's grandfather was not related to the protected tenancy land. The respondents claim that they were granted fair succession by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and that they were restored to physical possession of the land under Section 32(2) of the Act, 1950. The respondents further assert that the appellants appeal is frivolous and filed with false allegations in collusion with politicians and land grabbers to grab the land. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed due to the delay of over a decade in filing the appeal.

6. After considering the submissions of both parties, the Joint Collector held that the Tahsildar granted succession to both the appellant and respondents on 11.12.2001 under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 and consequently revised his own order and issued another proceedings granting succession to the unofficial respondents. He further observed that the T