THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1392 of 2006

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-

respondents, aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2005 passed in case No.F2/6883/1996 by the Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioners filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 40(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, seeking succession of Protected Tenancy (PT) rights held by their fathers over lands bearing Survey Nos.402, 403, 404, 405, 469, 574, 575 and 594 of Nedunoor Village. The petitioners claimed that their fathers were the original protected tenants of the said lands and, after their demise, the petitioners were entitled to succeed to the PT rights. It is further submitted that, as legal heirs, they were entitled to their respective shares in the PT rights and requested that succession be granted accordingly.

3. Upon receipt of the application, notices were issued to the interested parties, including the legal heirs of the original PTs and the purchasers of the land. The purchasers filed a counter, contending that the petitioners were neither pattadars nor possessors of the land and, therefore, not entitled to succession of PT rights. Their primary contention was that Kumari Rajaiah and Muddem Ramulaiah were not protected tenants, despite their names being recorded in the PT register. It was further contended that these individuals had never cultivated the lands at any point in time, particularly prior to 1954, and had orally surrendered the lands in 1950 and the purchasers argued that the names remained in the PT register only nominally and that the petition was filed with the intent to claim the land illegally due to its increased value. 4. After hearing both parties, the Mandal Revenue Officer concluded that the petitioners were indeed the legal heirs of the original protected tenants and observed that although the lands had been transferred to others, the PT rights remained intact and, accordingly, granted succession under Section 40(2) of the Act in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the purchasers filed an appeal before the Joint Collector–II, Ranga Reddy District. They contended that the original protected tenants had surrendered their tenancy rights orally to the pattadars prior to 1954, particularly in respect of Survey Nos.574, 575, and 594, and had never been in possession of the lands and that the purchasers had acquired the lands from the pattadars, who were in possession prior to 1954, and that subsequent revenue records confirmed their continued possession. The respondents were also alleged not to be protected tenants of the land in Survey No.569, which was cultivated by one Peddati Ramaiah prior to 1954, who was not made a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the purchasers argued that the petitioners had no valid claim.

5. Considering the submissions of both sides, the Joint Collector reversed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Joint Collector held that there was no documentary evidence to prove the death of the original protected tenants, and this fact was not addressed in the MRO’s order. Additionally, it was noted that the protected tenancy was not recorded in the Khasra Pahani, which holds significant evidentiary value among revenue records. On these grounds, the appeal was allowed, and the MRO’s order was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. Heard Sri Jetti Yasha Surya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ranga Rao Nellutla, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there is sufficient documentary evidence to establish that all the petitioners were recognized as protected tenants, as reflected in the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) and that the mere absence of the names of th