Telangana High Court
B.Sujatha vs The State Of Telangana on 28 May, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.10643 OF 2019
JUDGMENT :
Common Order dated 28.03.2008 in Case Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 passed by respondent No.3 - the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, and consequential order dated 11.02.2019 in Proceedings No.B/637/2018 passed by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are challenged in this writ petition contending that those orders are contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short 'Tenancy Act') and the Rules made thereunder.
2. Respondent No.5 - Mrs. M. Sridevi (since died, represented by her legal heir - respondent No.6 viz., Mr. Reddy Gokul Kumar) was the appellant in the appeals in Case Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 filed under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act challenging the orders passed by respondent No.4 in Case No.A/1139/97 dated 04.11.1997 and Case No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004. Respondent Nos.2 to 11 in the said appeals are legal heirs of the protected tenants Mr. Maheswaram Lingaiah alias Potti Linga and Mr. Talari Lakshmaiah.
2
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 3.1. It was claimed by respondent No.5 in the aforesaid appeals before respondent No.3 that one Mr. Jagannath Reddy was absolute owner, pattedar and exclusive possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.11-15 guntas in Survey No.692 situated at Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Chevella Taluka, Ranga Reddy District, and his name was recorded for the same as pattedar and possessor. The subject land was cultivated by one Potti Linga and Talari Lakshmaiah before 1950 and their names were recorded as protected tenants in the Final Record of the Protected Tenancy Register. In 1951, the said protected tenants Mr. Potti Linga and Talari Lakshmaiah, orally, surrendered their rights as protected tenants in respect of the subject land by putting the original pattedar Mr. Jagannath Reddy in possession of the same. Pahanies right from 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54 clearly indicate that Mr. Jagannath Reddy is pattedar and possessor of the subject land. In 1981, Mr. Jagannath Reddy sold the subject land to one Mr. Bojana Mallaiah under an unregistered sale deed and delivered possession of the same to him.
3.2. Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 clearly shows that Mr. Jagannath Reddy was pattedar and Mr. Bojana Mallaiah was cultivator and Khangi Khareeddar (purchased under an unregistered sale deed). From the date of 3 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 purchase till 1981, the subject land was in possession and cultivation of Mr. Bojana Mallaiah and his name was also recorded as pattedar and possessor in the revenue records. Subsequently, ownership of the subject land was changed which is as under:
Sl. Year Name of the Seller Extent Name of the purchaser Regd. Document No. No. Dated
1. 1981 Bojana Mallaiah Ac.5-30 Md. Yahyha Siddiqui 2025 of 1981 gts. Dated: 25.04.1091 (sic. 1981)
2. 1996 Md. Yahyha Siddiqui -- Md. Saluddin 7540 of 1996 and 2 others Dated: 04.09.1996
3. 1998 Md. Saluddin -- Kowsar Azam W/o. 10076 of 1998 Md. Azam Moinuddin Dated: 18.12.1998
4. 1999 Kowsar Azam W/o. -- Syed Sayeed Bin Aslam 5841 of 1999 Md. Azam Moinuddin and another Dated: 31.08.1999
5. 2001 Syed Sayeed Bin Aslam -- Appellants 3075 of 2001 and another Dated: 26.04.2001 Thus, respondent No.5 purchased the subject land from one Mr. Syed Sayeed Bin Aslam and Mr. Badar Bin Azzan through registered sale deed dated 26.04.2001 for a valuable consideration.
3.3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, passed ex parte order in Proceedings No.L/2325/2004 dated 28.12.2004, under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act in respect of the subject land in Survey No.692 of Janwada Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the legal heirs of the protected tenants (respondent Nos.2 to 11 in the appeals) which was challenged by respondent No.5 before 4 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 respondent No.3 by way of appeal in Case No.F2/2472/2005 which is pending consideration. Meanwhile, respondent No.5, having learnt about the orders passed by respondent No.4 in Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act and the consequential order under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act in Proceedings No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004, preferred appeals in Case Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 before respondent No.3.
3.4. It was contended by respondent No.5 that as the protected tenants viz., Mr. Potti Linga and Mr. Talari Lakshmaiah have surrendered their protected tenancy rights in respect of the subject land in 1951 itself by putting the original land lord Mr. Jagannath Reddy in possession of the same, succession of protected tenancy rights and delivery of possession under Sections 40 and 32, respectively, of the Tenancy Act are liable to be set aside.
4.1. The contention of the legal heirs of the protected tenants (respondent Nos.2 to 11 in the appeals) in the appeals before respondent No.3 is that originally Mr. Potti Linga and Mr. Talari Lakshmaiah, predecessors in title of the petitioners, were protected tenants of the subject land admeasuring Acs.11-15 guntas in Survey No.692; names of Mr. Potti 5 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 Linga and Mr. Talari Lakshmaiah have been recorded as joint protected tenants in the final record of the Protected Tenancy Register.
4.2. Mr. Potti Maisaiah, son of Mr. Lingaiah, filed an application before respondent No.4 on 25.05.1997 stating that his father Mr. Lingaiah expired leaving him behind two sons viz., Mr. Potti Gandaiah and Mr. Potti Maisaiah. Mr. Potti Gandaiah expired leaving behind his son Mr. Potti Krishna. Hence, requested to grant succession of protected tenancy rights in favour of the legal heirs of the protected tenants. Respondent No.4 issued notification calling for claims and objections, if any, but, as no claim or objection was raised by anybody, after due enquiry, granted succession of protected tenancy rights of Mr. Potti Lingaiah in favour of Mr. Potti Maiasaih, son of Mr. Potti Lingaiah, and Mr. Potti Krishna, son of Mr. Potti Gandaiah in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.5-27 guntas in Survey No.692 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950 vide Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997. They also filed an application under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act 1950 for restoration of possession of the subject land in Survey No.692 in their favour as it has been illegally occupied by some people including respondent No.5. By the order in Proceedings No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004, respondent No.4 6 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 inducted the legal heirs of the protected tenants into possession of the subject land covered by the protected tenants.
4.3. It was further contended by the legal heirs of the protected tenants that application was filed by them before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, for grant of ownership certificate as well as permission to purchase the subject land by fixing a reasonable price as provided under Section 38(2) of the Tenancy Act. The RDO passed order by the Proceedings No.L/2325/2004 dated 28.12.2004 and the legal heirs of the protected tenants remitted necessary amount and ownership certificate was granted to them as contemplated under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act on 31.12.2004. Respondent No.4 vide Proceedings No.B/03/2006 dated 04.01.2005 implemented the orders dated 31.12.2004 of the RDO and mutated the name of the legal heirs of the protected tenants as owners in all the revenue records and they were issued pattadar pass books.
4.4. Aggrieved by the order of the RDO in Proceedings No.L/2325/2004 dated 28.12.2004 passed under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act, respondent No.5 preferred appeal in Case No.F2/2472/2005 before respondent No.3 and the same was dismissed for default by the orders dated 06.01.2006. It was contended that claim of respondent No.5 is 7 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 hit by res judicata in view of the orders in Case No.F2/2472/2005 dated 06.01.2006 and further orders in Case No.A/1138/1997 dated 28.08.2004 passed by respondent No.4 under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act by giving elaborate reasons.
5.1. The aforesaid contentions of respondent No.5 and legal heirs of the protected tenants in the appeal proceedings have been noted by respondent No.3 and framed the following points:
"(1) Whether the Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to grant succession of protected tenancy rights pursuant to Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950?
(2) Can Mandal Revenue Officer in exercise of power U/s 40 of the Act recognize succession to tenancy and incorporate the same in Revenue records without any time limit form the date of demise of the Protected Tenant?"
5.2. Respondent No.3 observed that Section 40 of the Tenancy Act does not prescribe any time limit for recognition of succession; a parallel has to be drawn from the analogous provision of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1971 (ROR Act 1971) and the Rules made thereunder and referred to Section 4 of the ROR Act 1971. 8
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 5.3. Relevant findings recorded by respondent No.3 in the impugned order on the aforesaid point are extracted hereunder for convenience sake.
"The question has to be answered in the negative. Though Section 40 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950, does not prescribe any time-limit for recognition of succession, a parallel has to be drawn from the analogous provision of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 and the connected Rules.
Section 4 of the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Book Act reads as under:
"Acquisition of rights to be intimated:- (I) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government Patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattedar, mortgage, occupant or tenant of land any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it:
Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer.
In effect, the Revenue authorities can take cognizance of acquisition of rights if the same is intimated within a prescribed time-9
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 frame from the date of acquisition. Immediately upon receipt of intimation of acquisition of rights the Revenue authorities can conduct a summary enquiry and if there are no serious disputes, then, can order incorporation of names of successors in the Revenue records.
If succession is sought after a long-time from the date of demise of the right-holder, then it is beyond the competence of Revenue authorities to take cognizance of such succession for the reason that with the lapse of time, third party interests might have emerged on the scene or disputes in relation to rights of succession might have arisen with the advent of second generation. As such, it is difficult to determine the Legal heirs of the original right-holder.
As a result, recognition of rights of succession will not be amenable to a summary enquiry conducted by Revenue authorities. The issue would assume a complex dimension requiring a comprehensive adjudication by a Civil Court. In short, claim for succession to Protected Tenancy after a long distance of time from the date of demise of the original Protected Tenant cannot be entertained by Revenue authorities in exercise of the powers U/s 40 of the Act. The issue assumes a Civil nature with lapse of time and has to be adjudicated by a Civil Court."
5.4. Respondent No.3 further referred to the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Abdul Majeed @ Miya Pasha v. Joint Collector-II 1, wherein it was held that the Tahsildar has no power to decide the question of succession to the protected tenancy and the 1 (2006 (5) ALD 348) 10 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 parties have to approach the Civil Court for declaring themselves as legal heirs of the protected tenants. Finally, it was concluded by respondent No.3 in the impugned order that the Tahsildar is not competent to grant succession in exercise of powers conferred under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act and accordingly set aside the orders in Case No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act and the consequential order in Case No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2024 under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act.
6. It appears from the record, subsequently, respondent No.5 through her General Power of Attorney Holder Mr. T. Mallikarjuna Reddy filed application dated 16.12.2017 before respondent No.4 for correction of records in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.2-28 guntas in Survey No.692/1/A and an extent of Ac.0-24 guntas in Survey No.692/1/AA and for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. By the Proceedings No.B/637/2018 dated 11.02.2019, respondent No.4 passed orders deleting the name of the previous owners viz., Mrs. D. Vasanthi alias Seema, wife of Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mrs. S. Sreedevi, wife of Mr. Krishna, and restoring the name of respondent No.5 as owner of the subject lands.
11
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019
7. Respondent No.5 instituted a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S. No.64 of 2019 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.3-12 guntas in Survey No.692 of Janwada village against the petitioners, wherein interim injunction order was passed directing the petitioners not to alienate the subject land.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that they are subsequent purchasers from Mrs. D. Vasanti alias Seema, wife of Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mrs. S. Sreedevi, wife of Mr. Krishna. Petitioner No.1 purchased an extent of Ac.0-32 guntas of land out of Acs.2-28 guntas in Survey No.692/1/A from Mrs. D. Vasanthi and an extent of Ac.0-07 guntas of land out of Ac.0-24 guntas in Survey No.692 from Mrs. S. Sreedevi, total admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.7252/2016 dated 16.07.2016; similarly, petitioner No.2 purchased an extent of Ac.1-36 guntas of land in Survey No.692/1/A from Mrs. D. Vasanthi and an extent of Ac.0-17 guntas in Survey No.692 from Mrs. S. Sreedevi, total admeasuring Acs.2-13 guntas, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.7253/2016 dated 16.07.2016. 12
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019
9. It was contended that the petitioners were not issued notices in the Proceedings No.B/637/2018 wherein the order dated 11.02.2019 was passed deleting the names of the previous owners / vendors of the petitioners and restored the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands.
10. It is submitted that respondent No.5 has filed the application dated 16.02.2017 for implementation of the order dated 28.03.2008 passed by respondent No.3 with full knowledge that the petitioners have purchased the subject lands, and thus, respondent No.5 has obtained such order behind the back of the petitioners. The petitioners came to know about the impugned proceedings only when they received summons in O.S. No.64 of 2019. Thus, there is no delay on their part. The appeals preferred by respondent No.5 are not maintainable. A separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 was not filed by respondent No.5 before respondent No.3 in the impugned appeal proceedings filed under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act.
11. It is submitted that under Section 93 of the Tenancy Act, appeal has to be preferred within sixty (60) days from the date of the order passed under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act by the Tahsildar. Appeal was 13 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 preferred by respondent No.5 before respondent No.3 on 12.08.2005 which is after a lapse of 375 days of the order of respondent No.3. Instead of filing condone delay application, respondent No.5 vaguely sought delay condonation in the main prayer in the appeals in Case Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 against the order of the Tahsildar in Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 and Proceedings No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004.
12. Heard Mr. Hemendranath Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Sannapaneni Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Mr. Goverdhan Venu, learned counsel for respondent No.5; and perused the material on record.
13.1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned proceedings are null and void and liable to be set aside. Respondent No.5 was not a party to the Proceedings in Case No.A/1138/1997 under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act 1950 and the Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950. Further, respondent No.5 is a party to the Proceedings No.L/2325/2004 dated 28.12.2004 where she was arrayed as respondent 14 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 No.2 and the original landlord as respondent No.1. The appeal preferred by respondent No.5 challenging the order under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act dated 28.12.2004 before respondent No.3 vide Case No.F2/2472/2005 was dismissed for default on 06.01.2006. Respondent No.3 having knowledge about the order dated 06.01.2006 and having referred the same in the impugned order, did not give any finding as to validity of the Tenancy Certificate issued under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act.
13.2. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers and are not parties to the impugned proceedings. Moreover, respondent No.5 was not a party to the proceedings in Case No.A/1138/1997 under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act and the Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950. As the matter became complicated due to inconsistent orders and wrong application of law, the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law.
14.1. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the petitioners do not have any locus standi to challenge the impugned 15 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 proceedings. The petitioners are subsequent purchasers. Their vendors have not challenged the impugned proceedings. Respondent No.4 was not informed about the sale of subject lands in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were not parties to any of the earlier legal proceedings. Oral surrender of protected tenancy rights was valid prior to 1954 as held in catena of decisions. Names of Mr. Potti Lingaiah and Mr. Talari Lakshmaiah were not found anywhere in the revenue records. From 1951 till now, no protected tenancy entry is made. Revenue records of 1951 to 1985 were verified and pattedar pass books were issued to respondent No.5. It is not known whether the original owner Mr. Jagannath Reddy is alive or not and is survived by legal heirs. As per the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Abdul Majeed @ Miya Pasha's case (Supra 1), succession rights to the protected tenancy have to be decided by Civil Court. There are no details of death of Mr. Potti Lingaiah. There is a serious dispute with regard to title and only Civil Court can decide the title. As fraud is played by the vendors of the petitioners, the question of limitation in the impugned proceedings does not arise. The dismissal of appeal for default in Proceedings No.F2/2472/2005 dated 06.01.2006 will not have any bearing on the patta and possession, and that the principle of res judicata is not applicable. 16
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019
15. Though several decisions have been referred to, in the opinion of this Court, the same are not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It emerges from the above discussion and background of facts that title of respondent No.5 is traceable to original landlord Mr. Jagannath Reddy; whereas the title of the petitioners is traceable to legal heirs of the protected tenants who were issued Tenancy Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act dated 31.12.2004. Earlier to that the Proceedings in Case No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004 under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act 1950 and the Proceedings in Case No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950 were issued in favour of the legal heirs of the protected tenants.
16. Appeal in Case No.F2/2472/2005 preferred by respondent No.5 before respondent No.3 challenging the Tenancy Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act was dismissed for default on 06.01.2006. Appeal Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 preferred by respondent No.5 challenging the orders passed under Sections 40 and 32(1) of the Tenancy Act in Proceedings Nos.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 and A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004 were allowed by the impugned order dated 28.03.2008. Thereafter, the consequential order in Proceedings No.B/637/2018 dated 17 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 11.02.2019 was passed by respondent No.4 by implementing the order dated 28.03.2008 passed by respondent No.3.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS :
17. The Tenancy Act is a beneficial legislation and is a social enactment made for protecting interests of the tenants / tenure holders.
It is a special statute and is a self-contained Code. Recording names of the protected tenants in the Final Protected Tenancy Register (Sections 34 and
35), succession of protected tenancy rights (Section 40), restoration of possession of lands by the protected tenants (Section 32), surrender of possession by the protected tenants (Section 19), and issue of ownership certificate (Section 38) have to be made strictly in accordance with the Tenancy Act since it is a special statute. Whereas the ROR Act deals with correction / updation of revenue records, issuance of succession / mutation, pattedar pass books and title deeds. The impugned order dated 28.03.2008 passed by respondent No.3 is erroneous and suffers from jurisdictional error. No doubt, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao v. Nallolla Pantaiah2 that even if limitation is not prescribed under the Tenancy Act, the parties have to approach the authorities concerned within a reasonable time for claiming restoration of possession 2 (1998) 9 SCC 183 18 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. But, the impugned order of respondent No.3 drawing analogy of limitation under Section 4 of the ROR Act is not only improper but incorrect as well. Respondent No.5 purchased the subject land in 2001. She is not a party to the proceedings in Case No.A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004 under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act 1950 and the Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950. The appeal preferred by respondent No.5 before respondent No.3 challenging the proceedings under Section 38(6) of the Act was dismissed for default on 06.01.2006.
18. It was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to decide as to whether the proceedings under Sections 40 and 32(1) of the Tenancy Act in Case Nos.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 and A/1138/1997 dated 25.08.2004 have merged in the Proceedings No.L/2325/2004 dated 28.12.2004 under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act, and when the appeal challenging the proceedings under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act came to be dismissed for default by the order dated 06.01.2006, whether the appeals preferred challenging the orders passed under Sections 32(1) and 40 of the Tenancy Act are maintainable?
19
BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019
19. The contention raised by the petitioners that the appeals in Case Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 were preferred without an application for condonation of delay also needs to be addressed. Not only that respondent No.5 was not a party to the proceedings in Case No.A/1138/1997 under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act and the Proceedings No.A/1139/1997 dated 04.11.1997 under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, and the appeals were preferred with a delay of 375 days and without an application for condonation of delay; even when statutory time prescribed for preferring appeal is sixty (60) days as per Section 93 of the Tenancy Act. Thus, in any probability, for condonation of delay, an application ought to have been filed by respondent No.5 in the impugned appeal proceedings.
20. A Division Bench of this Court in Cyrus Investments Limited v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District3 (W.A. No.408 of 2011 and batch dated 10.07.2024) clarified the principle laid down in Syed Abdul Majeed @ Miya Pasha's case (Supra 1), holding that only if there is dispute regarding legal heirship, the parties have to be relegated to the Civil Court, otherwise, it is within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to grant 3 CDJ 2024 TSHC 248 20 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act. On this Count also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
21. In Kommineni Haribabu v. Tahsildar, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District 4, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that revenue forums cannot dismiss the matters for default. The learned Judge referred to the powers vested with the recording authority or appellate authority under Section 10 of the ROR Act 1971 and Rule 28 of the ROR Rules 1989 which are vested in the Civil Court by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for conducting enquiry, for entering upon and inspecting the land etc. Section 10 of the ROR Act 1971 read with Section 28 of the ROR Rules 1989 is in pari materia with Section 89(2) of the Tenancy Act. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the principle of law laid down in Kommineni Haribabu's case (Supra 4) is applicable to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act also. Thus, the order of dismissal for default dated 06.01.2006 is void. Even otherwise, a peculiar situation has arisen in the instant case that if this Court sets aside the impugned proceedings of succession and recovery of possession (Sections 40 and 32) and does not interfere with the order of dismissal dated 06.01.2006 in respect of the ownership certificate (Section 38(6)), it will be a fait accompli. 4 2013 SCC OnLine AP 207 : (2014) 1 ALD 304 : (2014) 3 ALT 674 21 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 Further, it will not only lead to confusion, but the order of dismissal dated 06.01.2006 will always stare at respondent No.5. The impugned proceedings related to the order dated 28.03.2008 and that the proceedings related to the order of dismissal for default dated 06.01.2006 are inter connected and no serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners and their vendors (legal heirs of the protected tenants) if the order of dismissal for default dated 06.01.2006 is set aside though the same is not a subject matter of this writ petition. It is settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has power / discretion to mould the relief for rendering substantial justice as held in M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank 5 (paragraph 10), Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd., New Delhi v. S. Govindaiah6 (paragraph 6), and Managing Director, Indian Immunological Ltd. V. Narendra Agrwal 7 (paragraph 11). Hence, the order of dismissal dated 06.01.2006 is liable to be set aside.
22. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the impugned proceedings only when they received summons in O.S. No.64 of 2019 and then the writ petition has been filed. The petitioners, who are 5 2025 SC OnLine SC 368 6 2002 (1) ALD 770 7 2021 (4) ALD 480 22 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 subsequent purchasers, are persons interested. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, though there is a delay of several years in challenging the impugned proceedings, as there is gross irregularity and illegality committed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in passing the impugned order, the writ petition is not hit by the doctrine of latches.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned common order dated 28.03.2008 in Case Nos.F2/3787/2005 and F2/3788/2005 passed by respondent No.3 - the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, and the consequential order dated 11.02.2019 in Proceedings No.B/637/2018 passed by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also the order of dismissal for default dated 06.01.2006 in Case No.F2/2472/2005 passed by respondent No.3 are set aside, and all the appeals stand restored to their original file for disposal afresh on merits in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 is directed to conduct joint enquiry by issuing notice to both sides and all interested persons and also by giving opportunity of hearing to them within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order is passed in view of the legal and procedural lapses committed by respondent No.3 in the 23 BVRJ, WP No.10643 of 2019 impugned order, as such, observations, if any, made in this order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits and order/s afresh shall be passed uninfluenced by the same. Further, the party concerned may approach respondent No.4 - Tahsildar for mutation and pattdar pass books subject to outcome of the appeals before respondent No.3. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: May 28, 2025.
NOTE:
1) LR copy to be marked.
2) After dispatch of the order, please send the file to the concerned Court Master for marking LR copy.
(BO) PV