IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.951 of 2020 Date: 13.02.2026 Between:

Singanamoni Balakistaiah and others ...Petitioners AND Harijan Chinna Venkataiah and others ...Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, against the order dated 30.12.2019 passed in Tenancy Appeal No.F1/1A-1/2017 by the Joint Collector, Wanaparthy. By the impugned order, the order dated 13.08.2016 passed in File No.B/400/2016 by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Wanaparthy, was set aside.

2. Heard Sri Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel representing Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri G.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioners and the respondents are referred to as ‘applicants’ and the ‘respondents’ respectively.

4. The brief facts of the case:

The applicants have filed an application under Section

38(E) under A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), along with an application under Section 40 of the Act, before the RDO to declare them as legal representatives of the deceased namely Sri Chinniga @ Chinnaiah, who was the original protected tenant of the subject property i.e., agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.12 gts. and Acs.2.35 gts. in Sy.Nos.561 and 571 respectively, situated at Ghanapur Village and Mandal. It is case of the applicants that they are the legal heirs of Thirupathaiah and Shanthaiah, who succeeded the rights from the protected tenant namely Chinnaiah. After the demise of the said Thirupathaiah and Shanthaiah, the applicants have succeeded to the subject property, as they are cultivating the same and their names were mutated in the revenue records as legal heirs of the protected tenant. As such, as the applicants are entitled for 38-E certificate as per the Act, they have filed an application before the RDO. As none appeared on behalf of the respondents, the RDO had allowed the said application, on the ground that the succession of the applicants was not disputed by anyone and directed all the Offices to issue 38-E Certificate in favour of the applicants, regarding the subject property.

5. Aggrieved, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Wanaparthy, contending that the RDO, Wanaparthy, has not conducted any enquiry in the matter as stipulated under the provisions of the Act; the order dated 13.08.2016 was obtained with anti-date from the Presiding Officer, who had already transferred and that RDO is not the competent authority to conduct enquiry under Section 40 of the Act. It is further contended that it is for the MRO/Tahsildar to enquire as to the legal representatives of the deceased protected tenant, if there is any dispute with regard to the relationship and if the relationship of the respondents with deceased protected tenant is disputed, the parties must approach the civil Court for adjudication of the matter and it is contended that the respondents are not the legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant. After hearing both the parties, the Joint Collector allowed the appeal on 30.12.2019, setting aside the order dated 13.08.2016 passed by the learned RDO. The relevant result portion is extracted hereunder:

“In the result, it is ordered that the appeal filed by the Appellants is hereby allowed and the Orders/Proceedings passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparty Dated: 13.08.2016 in File No.B/400/2016, declaring the Respondents herein as legal heirs of protected tenant and for the issue of 38-E Patta Certificate in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.561 and 571 with extents of Ac.02.12 gts and Ac.02.35 gts respectively situated within the limits of Ghanapur Village and Mandal, are hereby set-

aside”.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision