A revisional authority under the 1971 Act can examine the validity of foundational documents to correct revenue entries. A protected tenant cannot validly alienate land before ownership is conferred under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, and such void transactions do not gain validity over time.

ORDER

Heard Sri Ch.Vidyasagar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Jayaraj Joel Babu Raidu, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceeding No.F3/4770/2008-F3/42/ROR/2008 dated 22.5.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to re-enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The lis pertains to agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.13 Gts in Sy No. 256 of Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.2.08 Gts out of the said survey number from respondent Nos.13 and 14 vide registered sale deed dated 25.03.2004. The 4th respondent claims rights over the entire extent of Ac.6.13 Gts in Sy No.256 based on a registered General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 30.08.2007 executed in his favour by respondent Nos. 5 to 11, who claim to be the legal heirs of the original protected tenant, late Lagula Swamy.

Factual matrix (in brief)

4. The present writ petition emanates from protracted dispute concerning agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 256 of Nandigama Village, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Tenancy Act’), and subsequent revenue adjudications. The essential facts, stated in their chronological sequence, are delineated hereunder:

i) Originally, one Bhooma Goud was the protected tenant of the subject lands. Upon his demise, his sole son, Lagula Swamy, succeeded to the tenancy rights by virtue of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter, the competent authority granted a certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act in favour of Lagula Swamy on 14.05.1985, conferring ownership rights, and his name was accordingly mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor.

ii) It is the case on record that certain sale transactions were allegedly executed in the year 1973 by Lagula Swamy in favour of Yellagoni Pentamma and the predecessors of respondent Nos.13 and 14. These transactions are stated to have been unregistered and on plain paper, and to have preceded the grant of the Section 38-E certificate.

iii) On the strength of such alleged documents, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Patancheru, issued certificates under Section 13-B on 29.09.1994 in File Nos.F/3897/1994 and F/3896/1994, recognising rights in favour of the said purchasers to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy. No.256 and Ac.5.13 Gts respectively.

iv) Lagula Swamy is stated to have died leaving behind two wives namely; Gangamma and Basamma and four daughters through Basamma, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.5 to 11.

v) On 30.