Telangana High Court
G Balaiah, R.R.Dist And 3 Others vs Smt. S Deepika Chava, Hyderabad And 35 ... on 6 October, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Civil Revision Petition Nos.5279, 5570, 5631, 5632, 5633, 5634,
5635, 5665, 5666, 5667, 5668, 5680, 5681, 5683, 5686, 5731,
5732, 5858, 6164, 6461, 6479, 6503, 6504 of 2016;
6, 210, 219, 377, 998, 999, 1070, 1071, 1188, 1588, 1882, 1938,
1951, 2046, 2437 and 3160 of 2017 and
Writ Petition Nos.3860/2008, 6759/2017 and 11157/2019
COMMON ORDER:
The issues involved in these cases are intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.3860 of 2008 is filed seeking following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
i) to declare the exemption orders issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.1816, dt.18.10.2005; 2183, dt.27.12.2005 etc., recommended by Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, approved building plans of Vice Chairman, HUDA(CDA), Hyderabad vide Lr.No. 13092/BP/CDA/2006, dt.15.5.2007 and the plan sanction approved for multi storied complex vide proceedings G/353/BP/2611/2007, dt.19.5.2007 of Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Serilingampally, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as illegal;
ii) to set aside the same as urged by the Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District vide Lr.No.AO/W/264/75, dt.20.10.2007 as the respondents 12 to 33 have no right to transfer any inch of land in Sy.Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 53 part of Gachibowli Village in view of the surrender of the tenancy claim in proceedings of the Tahsildar in proceedings No.A3/10805/64, dated 18.2.1965; A3/3749/65, dated 2.4.1965; A4/256/1966, dated 16.10.1966 and final list was also published stating that NIL tenancy and its confirmation through orders of Revenue Divisional Officer in LRW/47/75, dt.31.5.1975 and in view of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6093/2006 and 7013/2006 and the status quo orders dt.8.9.2006 granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequentially;
iii) to direct the respondents 10 and 11 to stop all illegal construction over the disputed land and declare the fraudulent GPA of respondents 13 to 31 in favour of P.Venugopal Reddy the sale deeds bearing 2 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch doc.Nos.2887/2003, to 2900/2003, executed on 10.3.2003 and sale deed bearing doc.nos. 4646/2001 to 4648/200, dt.27.6.2001, sale deed bearing doc.no.675/05, dt.29.8.2003, agreement of sale cum GPA doc.nos. 4513/2006, dt.22.6.2001, doc.no.10536/2006, dt.8.5.2005, development-cum-GPA doc.no.8355/06, dt.10.4.2006 and doc.no.4136/2006, dt.20.2.2006 and;
iv) declare the subsequent sale transactions in Sy.No.46 of Gachibowli Village are null and void in view of the fraud and statutory provision..."
3. Civil Revision Petition Nos.5279, 5570, 5631, 5632, 5633, 5634, 5635, 5665, 5666, 5667, 5668, 5680, 5681, 5683, 5686, 5731, 5732, 5858, 6164, 6461, 6479, 6503, 6504 of 2016; 6, 210, 219, 377, 998, 999, 1070, 1071, 1188, 1588, 1882, 1938, 1951, 2046, 2437 and 3160 of 2017 under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Tenancy Act, 1950") are filed challenging the common order dated 24.09.2016 passed in Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch, by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Mr.Yadaiah, (the petitioner, who filed C.R.P No.5279 of 2016), has filed Writ Petition No.6759 of 2017 seeking to declare the inaction on the part of officials of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in removing the illegal structures made by the unofficial respondents inspite of issuance of Notice No.2702/TPS/C- 11/WZ/GHMC/2017 as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.
3 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
5. W.P.No.11157 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners seeking following relief:
"...to issue order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing impugned orders dt.24.09.2016 in F2/5408/2013 and batch setting aside orders of the 3rd respondent herein 15.10.2013 in proceeding No.G/2690/2013 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and restore petitioners rights as per the orders dt.15.10.2013 in proceedings No.G/2690/2013 of the 3rd respondent..."
FACTS OF THE CASE:
6. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present cases are briefly set out below:
7. It is stated that one Ilyas Burni was the owner of land admeasuring Acs.93.25 Gts. in Sy.Nos.44, 45, 46, 51, 52 and 53 situated at Gachibowli Village, Rajendranagar Taluk, Rangareddy District. It is further stated that on 22.02.1940, Lingamma, who is pattadar of land admeasuring Acs.63-18 Gts. in Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43 and 47, sold the same to Ilyas Burni. Consequently, Ilyas Burni became the pattadar of the lands admeasuring Acs.157-03 Gts. in Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51 and 53 of Gachibowli Village. It is also stated that on 21.06.1946, Lingamma sold Acs.17-00 Gts. in Sy.No.50 to Haleema Khatoon. Ilyas Burni also purchased Acs. 9.08 Gts. in Sy. No. 35 and Acs. 7-06 Gts. in Sy. No. 36 of Gachibowli village. In the year 1950, Ilyas Burni became the absolute owner of 4 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Acs. 190-17 Gts. in various survey numbers of Gachibowli Village. In the year 1952, Lingamma stated to have filed a suit vide O.S.No.11/1 of 1952 seeking declaration of her title against the alleged tenants and others and the said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed A.S.No.25 of 1958. In the year 1958, a list of protected tenants was prepared under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act. It is further stated that on 02.09.1961, the daughters of Ilyas Burni sold an extent of Acs.157-03 gts comprising in several survey numbers to M/s.Kastopa Corporation, represented by Kantilal C. Seth. It is also stated that on 28.9.1964, an extent of Acs.33-14 Gts. forming part of Sy.Nos. 35, 36 and 50 was purchased by the Kastopa Corporation. Thus the Kastopa Corporation became the owner and landlord for total extent of Acs.190-17 Gts. It is stated that on 20.2.1965, a compromise petition was jointly filed by tenants before the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, surrendering their tenancy rights in respect of some of the lands and the same was accepted, and their names were allegedly deleted from the tenancy register. A.S.No.25 of 1958 was decreed on 31.8.1965 duly recording the compromise said to have been entered by parties to the suit. It is stated that on 16.10.1966, the remaining tenants surrendered tenancy rights before the Tahsildar and it is alleged that their names were deleted from the final tenancy register. After the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short "CoAH Act, 5 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 1973") came into force, the Kastopa Corporation filed a declaration under Section 8 of the CoAH Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short "LRT"), Hyderabad West, in C.C.No.265/10/75 without showing the protected tenants over the subject lands and other lands in dispute. It is stated that on 17.03.1975, several individuals claiming to be protected tenants filed an objection petition seeking ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Pending adjudication of the same, it is stated that a compromise petition was filed by the tenants waiving their rights in respect of certain lands. On 31.05.1975, the Land Reforms Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the protected tenants and allowed the petition of Kastopa Corporation (declarant) and rejected the claim of the tenants for issuance of Certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. On 9.12.1975, the Tribunal declared that Kastopa Corporation was holding an excess of 2.2862 Standard Holding under the CoAH Act. The appeal vide LRA No.10 of 1976 filed by the Kastopa Corporation was dismissed on 06.04.1976, and further challenge in CRP (SR) No.24698 of 1976 was dismissed on 28.4.1976. Kastopa Corporation filed a petition on 05.05.1976 for surrender of Acs.137.17 Gts towards surplus land. On 04.09.1976, notice calling for objections was published and it is stated that no objections were filed. On 06.10.1976, the surrender proceedings were approved and possession was allegedly taken by the Revenue Inspector on 6 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 13.10.1976. On 24.01.1978, a notice under Rule 12(2) was issued and published in the A.P. Gazette, wherein it is stated that no claims were filed by alleged protected tenants. In April, 1978, a notice under Section 16 of the CoAH Act was issued regarding determination of compensation for the surrendered land. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.594 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 20-04-1979 granting lease of part of lands surrendered by Kastopa Corporation in favour of National Director, Maharshi Institute of Creative Intelligence. The Tahsildar vide proceedings No.B4/4953/78 dated 06.11.1979 granted succession to legal heirs of some of the deceased tenants. Challenging the said G.O, the tenants filed Writ Petition No.4590 of 1980 stating that they are the protected tenants of the lands and are in possession and enjoyment of the lands and claimed rights under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.1981 directing to conduct an enquiry by the Collector or any such other officer as may be designated by him not below the rank of the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short "RDO"), into the questions whether the petitioners were declared as protected tenants and whether they have surrendered the tenancy rights or not and accordingly, the enforceability of the G.O. impugned in the writ petition, would depend upon the result of the enquiry. It is stated that in pursuance of the said direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella 7 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch ("RDO/Original Authority"), conducted detailed enquiry in File No.G/1565/81 and submitted report dated 27-07-1981 holding that Sri Khanamet Balaiah, Manikonda Kondaiah, Gadda Maisaiah and Derlapalli Babaiah are protected tenants under Section 37A of Tenancy Act and their names were included in the tenancy register in the year 1958 and there is no surrender of rights under Section 19 of Tenancy Act in respect of these persons. The relevant findings of the RDO Report are extracted hereunder:
"......the tenancy record prepared in the year 1951 u/s.34 is the one and another one is prepared u/s.37-A in 1958. In the tenancy record prepared in the year 1951, the following names only of the petitioners are found against lands in S.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43 and 47, which are part of the lands concerned herein.
1. Kannamet Balaiah
2. Manikonda Kondaiah
3. Derlapalli Babaiah
4. Ganjayi Narasaiah But these names were deleted rounding of the entries with an endorsement in the remarks column by the Tahsildar that they along with other protected tenants have surrendered their rights u/s.19 of the Act. In the tenancy record of 1958 prepared u/s.37-A, on which only the petitioners are relying, the following names only among the petitioners are found as protected tenants on all lands concerned herein including Sy.Nos.46 &47
1. Kannamet Balaiah
2. Manikonda Kondaiah
3. Ganjayi Narasaiah
4. Derlapalli Babaiah All other petitioners names are not found in the tenancy record prepared in 1958.
xx xx xx xx
8 CVBR,J
CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
".....The petitioners at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 only are found to have declared as protected tenants under the provisions of Sec.37-A of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in the year 1958, on the lands concerned herein viz., 37, 40, 42 to 47, 51, 52 and 53 total admeasuring Ac.157-03 gts., of Gachibowli Village. The remaining petitioners are found to have riot declared as protected tenants on the said lands under the provisions of Sec.37-A of Tenancy Act. The proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 06.11.1979 in which the names of all these petitioners were brought to record are found void. The petitioner No.4 is found to have died long back (8 years)......
xx xx xx xx "....Here even presuming that the surrender validly took place in favour of the landholder to the extent of the suit lands, there remain still some more lands in S.Nos.44, 45, 46, 51, 52 and 53 on which no surrender u/s.19 took place as no evidence of proceedings u/s.19 of the Act has been produced. Thus, it is clear that there has been surrender of rights by the petitioners and their predecessors-in- interest on the lands in S.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43 and 47 in the year 1965 in favour of Smt. Lingamma in pursuance of the compromise decree in A.S. No.25 of 1958, though she was not holding any patta rights on that day and this surrender cannot be deemed for the rights given in the year 1958 though the protected tenants were never in possession right from 1958 as per the entries in the village accounts (pahanies)....".
xx xx xx xx "..... Since the issue is of the surrender and that too according to law; the extinguishment of right is not the subject matter to decide, it is not desirable for me to give specific findings on it. Here according to law means according to the provisions available in the Tenancy Act for making surrender of tenancy rights. The section 19 of said Act lays provision for surrender. According to which it should be in writing and is:
admitted before the Tahsildar and it should be made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar. No evidence of the action taken or proceedings conducted under section 19 of the Act, was produced.
........Thus, it can clearly be said that no such process of surrender by the protected tenants petitioners u/s.19 for the rights acquired u/s.37-A has took place so far, though the petitioners claim that they are in possession and enjoyment is found baseless...."
8. Relying on the said report dated 27.07.1981, the tenants filed W.P.No.4059 of 1982 seeking to declare them as protected tenants of the agricultural lands covered by lands in Sy.Nos. Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 53, admeasuring Ac.157-03 guntas situated at Gachibowli village, Rajendranagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy 9 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch District and for grant of benefits under Sections 38(E) and 38A and B of Tenancy Act, 1950 notwithstanding any proceedings under the CoAH Act, 1973. The learned Single Judge relying on the report of the RDO referred above, allowed the said Writ Petition vide order dated 15.07.1987 and directed the respondents therein to grant certificates under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.73.03 gts and permitted the petitioners therein to file applications under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, before the RDO.
9. While the matter stood thus, between 1986 and 1987, Kastopa Corporation executed several sale deeds in favour of Diamond Hills Association, its members and others (respondents in these revision cases). Questioning the orders passed in WP No. 4059 of 1982, the State filed Writ Appeal No.1420 of 1987 and the same was dismissed on 25.01.1993. The said order attained finality as no appeal was preferred to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The RDO, Chevella, issued ownership certificates on 25.04.1995 under Section 38-E to the protected tenants in respect of land admeasuring Acs.73.03 gts. The Kastopa Corporation filed an application dated 01.04.1996 under Section 22(1) of the CoAH Act to re-open and re-compute the subject lands of declarations. The LRT reopened the Case No.W/264/75 on 31.07.1996 for re-computation of the lands and the said order was challenged by the State in LRA No.89/1996 on the file of LRAT-cum-II 10 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The protected tenants were impleaded as respondents in the said appeal. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on 21.07.1997, holding that reopening the declarant's case was impermissible. Aggrieved by the same, Kastopa Corporation filed CRP No. 3755 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 6.11.1998, recognizing the rights of the protected tenants and directing re-computation of holding of Kastopa Corporation. The protected tenants filed applications dated 19.8.1996 under Sections 38-A and 38-B for sale certificates in respect of land admeasuring Ac.84-00 gts in Sy.Nos.46, 47, 51, 52 and 53. Questioning the inaction of the respondents, the tenants filed W.P.No.3251 of 1998 and the same was disposed of on 09.02.1998 directing the R.D.O to dispose of the applications filed by the protected tenants, expeditiously, in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the appeal filed by the Authorized Officer under the CoAH Act, 1973 questioning the issuance of Section 38-E certificates was dismissed by the Joint Collector vide Proceedings No.B4/4802/1996 dated 20.06.1998. In pursuance of the same, Tribunal re-computed the holding of Kastopa Corporation, declaring surplus of 0.62636 Standard Holding on 18.2.1999. The LRT on 26.05.1999 directed surrender of lands in Sy.Nos. 46, 47 and 53. The Declarant Kastopa Corporation offered to surrender the said lands. Questioning the same, the tenants filed appeal vide LRA No.13/2000 and the same 11 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch was allowed on 29.09.2000 and the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal to consider the claims of protected tenants.
10. In the meanwhile, the tenants filed W.P.No.14708 of 1999 and by order dated 20.09.1999, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the authorities to consider the applications of tenants under Section 38-A of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.183 Municipal Administration and Urban Development dated 24.03.2000 under the provisions of Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short "UDA Act, 1975") notifying the subject lands and other lands as residential zone. The RDO granted sale certificates on 28.4.2001 under Section 38-A to protected tenants and declared Kastopa Corporation as non-surplus holder. On coming to know about the same, respondents in these revisions claiming to be purchasers from Kastopa Corporation (declarant) filed appeal vide Case No.F2/4902/2001 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Authorized Officer under CoAH Act also filed appeal vide Case No.F2/4903/2002. The Joint Collector vide common order dated 09.12.2003 allowed the appeals by setting aside the order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the RDO in Case No.G/3640/1996 granting sale certificates, holding that most of the certificate holders had sold their lands and relinquished their tenancy rights. Challenging the same, the protected tenants filed CRP No.6708 of 12 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 2003 and the State Government filed CRP No.1200 of 2003. On 07.10.2005, CRP No.6708 of 2003 was allowed and CRP No.1200 of 2003 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No.3054 of 2006 and batch were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 07.12.2010 while allowing the appeals had set aside the order dated 07.10.2005 and remitted the matter to the High Court. The questions framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court for determination by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court are as follows:
"1. Whether the respondents or their predecessors were, at any stage, recorded as protected tenants in respect of land measuring 190 acres 17 guntas situate in survey Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42-47, 50-53 of Gachibowli Village, Serlingamapalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad or any portion thereof?
2. Whether the findings recorded by the RDO in his enquiry report dated 27.7.1981 in respect of (a) the status of respondents as protected tenants u/s 37-A and (b) absence of proof of surrender in accordance with Section 19 of the Act, were challenged by Kastopa Corporation. If not whether the said findings can be challenged by the successors in interest of Kastopa Corporation?
3. In case, questions No.1 and 2 above, are answered in the affirmative, whether the respondents or their predecessors had validly surrendered their tenancy rights in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. If so, in which proceedings and qua which survey numbers, was the surrender made?
4. Whether the sale of plots from the year 1986 onwards by M/s.Kastopa Corporation and the protected tenants in favour of the appellants and the petitioners in the concerned SLPs are valid having regard inter-alia to the provisions of the Tenancy Act?
5. Whether the lands covered by protected tenancy rights were liable to be excluded from the holding of Kastopa Corporation under the Ceiling Act and, if they had not been excluded initially, whether the authorities under the Ceiling Act could exclude them subsequently at the instance of the protected tenants or the land holder?
6. Whether there was conversion of the land use for house sites and non- agricultural purposes in respect of the lands in question in accordance 13 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch with law and if so, what is the effect of such conversion on the rights of the parties and from which date would the conversion be effective?
7. Whether surplus land to an extent of Ac 137.17 guntas in Survey Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 of Gachibowli Village had vested in the government under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Land Reforms Act'). If so whether, any transaction by way of sale-deeds or otherwise by the d `protected tenants' and the 'pattadars' are void ab initio?
8. Whether the ceiling proceedings had attained finality with the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition (SR) No.24698 of 1976 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide Order dated 28.4.1976. If so whether the same could not be reopened in Writ proceedings and in the absence of necessary parties or in collateral proceedings like Civil Revision Petition No. 3577 of 1997?
9. Having obtained a consent order dated 20.9.1999 (Justice A.S. Bhate's order) in Writ Petition No. 14708 of 1999 for grant of rights under Section 38(a) in respect of land in survey numbers 46, 47 and 53 (Paiki) to the extent of 37 acres, whether the respondents could mutually agree for issue of 38- A sale Certificates qua land in survey numbers 51, 52 and part 53 sold to the Petitioners herein for valuable consideration?
10. Whether the respondents are entitled to certificates under Section 38-
A over Survey Nos.51, 52 & 53?"
11. On remand, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide common order dated 25.02.2013 while disposing of C.R.P.No.6708 of 2003 and batch, remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to decide certain issues. The relevant paragraphs of the said common order dated 25.02.2013, are extracted hereunder:
"60. In a particular case, multiple questions may arise, like whether a transfer is made to defeat the objects of the ceiling law; whether a partition effected is valid; whether an adoption is valid; whether a dissolution of marriage is valid; whether a particular land is agricultural land etc. Such questions in the normal course have to be decided only by the civil court or other authorities. But, all such questions fall within the jurisdiction of the LRT in view of S.7(7) of Ceiling Act and the LRT is legislatively empowered to decide all such issues. In our view, similarly u/s.13 of the Ceiling Act, the LRT is conferred the jurisdiction to determine issues whether a land or part thereof stood statutorily transferred to a protected tenant. Even otherwise, it would incongruous to hold that the LRT may not decide these questions in the absence of a 14 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch specific provision in the statute and must relegate the parties to have them determined before the appropriate forum under the general law and keep the ceiling proceedings in abeyance till all such questions are fully and finally determined by the hierarchy of authorities or courts. In such case, it would be easy for anybody to raise these questions and have proceedings before the LRT kept in abeyance for an indefinite period. Such a construction would render the Ceiling Act unworkable and defeat the objects of the Act.
Conclusions on issues 5, 7 and 8 formulated by the Supreme Court:
61. On the analysis above, we hold on issue No. 5 framed by the Supreme Court that lands covered by protected tenancy rights (though liable to be excluded from the holding of Kastopa under the Ceiling Act first in view of S. 13, but were not so excluded in 1975) cannot be excluded subsequently by authorities under the Ceiling Act, at the instance of protected tenants or the landholder. We hold on issue No. 7 that surplus land to an extent of Ac. 137.17 gts. in Sy. Nos. 35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 of Gachibowli village had irrevocably vested in the State under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act and any transaction by way of sale or otherwise in respect of the said land by the alleged protected tenants and the pattedars is void ab initio, of no legal effect or consequence and inoperative. We also hold on issue No. 8 that Ceiling proceedings had attained finality with the dismissal of C.R.P.S.R. No. 24698 of 1976 on 28-04-1976 and the same could not be reopened in or qua writ proceedings or in collateral proceedings.
62. In view of the patent lack of jurisdiction, to reopen proceedings under the Ceiling Act which attained finality in 1975/1976, we hold that the order dated 28.4.2001 in C.C. No. W/264/75 of the Land Reforms Tribunal-RDO, Chevella as confirmed in the order dated 28.4.2001 in LRA No. 16 of 2001 dated 2.9.2002 is without jurisdiction and a nullity. In exercise of our jurisdiction under S. 21 of the Ceiling Act, we quash the said orders. CRP No.1200/2003 filed by the State is accordingly allowed.
93. In our considered view, the answers to issues 1 to 4, 6, 9 and 10 formulated by the Supreme Court are inextricably intertwined with the issue whether the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 6708 of 2003 are protected tenants and whether respondents in the said C.R.P. have any right, title or interest in the lands in Sy. Nos. 51 to 53 allegedly purchased by them. The several contentions of the respective parties adverted to above highlight the respective stands and the difficulty in answering the said questions/issues in exercise of the circumscribed revisional jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Section 92 of the Tenancy Act.
94. There are also several other issues which are mentioned below (on which we have recorded the competing contentions but not our conclusions), which may require analysis and resolution:
a) Whether G.O.Ms.No.183 MA dt. 24.3.2000 issued under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 notifying the subject lands as "residential use" zone takes away the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy Act in the light of S. 102(e) of the Tenancy Act?
15 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
b) Whether the report of RDO dt.27.7.1981 has any value and whether the said official is conferred any jurisdiction to determine who is the protected tenant in the light of Rule 14 r/w Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950 ?
c) Whether respondents in CRP No. 6708/2003 have the locus standi to contest the application of the petitioners therein for grant of sale certificate u/s. 38-E or 38-A of the Tenancy Act or they may only approach the civil court or other appropriate forum to canvass their rights, if any, in the property purchased by them ?
d) Whether the order dt.9.12.1975 of the LRT determining the holding of the declarant Kastopa which has attained finality extinguishes the rights of the petitioners in CRP. No. 6708/2003, if any, under the Tenancy Act ?
e) If the petitioners in CRP. No.6708/2003 are found entitled to ownership certificate u/s. 38-E of the Tenancy Act, would their right to purchase u/s. 38 or 38-A of the said Act get exhausted ?
f) Is it permissible in law to grant of a joint certificate either u/s. 38-E or S. 38-A of the Tenancy Act to several persons claiming to be protected tenants?
g) Whether the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents 8-72 in CRP No. 6708/2003 are violative of S. 38-D of the Act and if so, whether the sale deeds are void ?
95. The Result:
On the aforestated analyses, observations and conclusions:
(a) C.R.P.S.R. Nos. 24532 of 2012 and 24636 of 2012 are dismissed with costs payable by the petitioners therein to the private respondents therein. C.R.P. No. 1200 of 2003 is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-
payable by Kastopa to the State;
(b) C.R.P. 6708/2003 is allowed but without costs and the order dt.28.4.2001 of the RDO, Chevella in Ref. No. G/3640/1996 and the order dt.9.12.2003 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Ref. F2/4902/2001 are set aside;
(c) The matter is remitted to the RDO, Chevella, to consider afresh whether petitioners in CRP. No. 6708/2003 are entitled to ownership certificate u/s. 38-E and/or sale certificate u/S. 38-A of the Tenancy Act in respect of land of an extent Ac. 36.25 gts retained by Kastopa (which is the balance left out of Ac. 190.17 gts (equivalent to Ac. 190.42 gts) owned by it, after deducting (i) Ac. 137.17 gts surrendered by Kastopa to the State under the Ceiling Act, and (ii) Ac. 17.00 in Sy. No. 50 of Gachibowli village (in which the petitioners never claimed to be protected tenants), in Sy. No. 51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the light of the applications filed before the said authority; and to consider the issues set out in para 94 supra in 16 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch conformity with the observations, analyses and conclusions recorded in this Judgment; apart from issues 1-4,6,9 and 10 formulated by the Supreme Court in it's order dt. 7.12.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 3054 of 2006, after affording opportunity to all affected parties including R. 8-72 and after duly verifying all the relevant records in original;
(d) Liberty is preserved to all the necessary and proper parties to adduce evidence, oral or documentary as they consider appropriate. The entire exercise shall be concluded by the RDO, Chevella, within 12 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(e) Pending disposal of the matter afresh by the RDO, Chevella, status quo prevailing as on today be maintained in all respects by all parties in respect of the land of Ac. 36.25 gts in Sy.No.51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli village;
(f) The State is declared entitled to forthwith resume possession of the land of an extent of Ac.137.17 gts in Sy.Nos.35-37, 40, 42-47 and 53 part of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which had irrevocably vested in it under provisions of the Ceiling Act; and
(g) As petitioners have made no claim at any time that they were protected tenants in respect of land admeasuring Ac.17.00 in Sy.No.50 of Gachibowli village, the decision in these cases will not in any manner affect the purchasers or possessors of the said extent of land."
12. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 25.02.2013 passed in C.R.P.No.6708 of 2003 and batch, the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District (Original Authority), in Case No.G/2690/2013 passed the order dated 15.10.2013, wherein it was observed as under:
"Summary of Conclusions:
In view of the above discussion the findings in regard to the Tenancy Act applicable in this case are discussed here under.
Whether the Petitioners are declared as Protected Tenant over the lands claimed by them.
The Petitioners Sl.No.1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 20 to 30 Including their Predecessors in interest have been validly declared as Protected Tenants over Ac. 157.03 gts covered by Sy.No.37,40,42 to 47 and 51 to 53 of Gachibowli village and remaining petitioners have not been declared as Protect Tenants on the said land under the provisions of the section 37-A of Tenancy Act.
17 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Did petitioner or any of them or their predecessors in interest surrendered their Tenancy Rights according to law and If so, which of them, when and which proceedings.
There was a valid surrender over Ac.63.18 gts covered by Sy.No.37,40,42,43 and 47 in favour of Smt. Lingamma the-then pattedar in pursuance of compromise in A.S.No.25 of 1958 before the Hon'ble High Court. Also that the land covered by Sy.No.35,36 and 50 are free from the protected tenancy U/s. 37-A Tenancy Act of 1950. Whether the 38-E patta certificates issued by the Revenue Division Officer in G/1188/1993 dt 25.04.1995 for an Area Ac.73.03 gts over Sy.No. 37, 40,42,43,44 and 45 to Khanamet Balaiah and Others is valid and Subsisting.
The Hon'ble High Court in CRP.No.6708/2003 dt.25.02.2013 held that the grant of certificates of ownership U/s. 38-E of Tenancy Act on 25.04.1995 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in respect of Sy.No.37, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 45 total extent Ac.73.03 gts of Gachibowli village which from (part of the land surrendered by M/s.Kastopa Corporation to the State) is without jurisdiction, null and void, consequently Proceeding of RDO, Chevella Division granting certificate of ownership U/S.38-E on 25.04.1995 are not subsisting and the certificate holders have no valid rights or title. The Validity of "588" sale deeds executed by M/s Kastopa Corporation The sales executed by M/s Kastopa Corporation and others in favour of 588 plots including the members of the Diamond Hills society are in violation of S.30(1), 38-D and 38(4) of the Tenancy Act 1950, and hence those have no effect on the ownership rights of tenants conferred on them under tenancy law.
The aim of the petitioners for 38-E certificate. It is ordered that subject to submission of succession proceeding U/s.40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950, where ever necessary. The claim for issue of 38-E certificate will be issued for Ac.42.24 gts or Ac.42.60 cents over Sy.Nos.51, 52 and part of 53 of Gachibowli village to the petitioners at Sl.No.1,3,5,6,12,13, and 20 to 30.
The claim of the remaining petitioners is rejected as they have not adduced any evidence or documents to establish their claim. However M/s.Kastopa Corporation is not entitled to claim in future, to equivalent land from the government as the land already declared as Surplus and vested In Government for retention as the said firm has already consented and expressed no objection for issuance of sale certificate in favour of eligible Protected Tenants.
Claim of M/s Kastopa Corporation for Ac.17.00 gts in Sy. No.50. It is ordered that the land covered by Sy.No.50 extent Ac 17.00gts is neither covered by Tenancy nor declared/Surrendered as Ceiling Surplus.
18 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Therefore the M/s. Kastopa Corporation is entitled to hold the land extent Ac.17.00 gts covered by Sy.No.50 of Gachibowli Vg. Additional Issue (a):
Whether G.O.Ms.NO.183 MA & UD Department dated 24.3.2000 issued under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 notifying the subject lands as Residential Zone takes away the jurisdiction of Authorities under the Tenancy Act in light of Sec.102(e) of Tenancy Act.
Finding: The tenancy rights of the petitioners are relating to the year 1950 onwards because of the possession over the said lands as tenants. Therefore, existing vested rights of the petitioners over the land in Sy.Nos.51, 52 & 53 part would not be divested by the G.O.Ms.No. 183 MẠ& UD Dept. dated: 24.3.2000. As such this issue is held in favour of petitioners.
Additional Issue (b): Whether the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella dated: 27.07.1981 has any value and whether said official is conferred any jurisdiction to determine who is the Protected tenant in light of Rule 14 read with Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950?
Findings: The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated: 27.7.1981 has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.4059 of 1982 and confirmed in W.A.No.1420 of 1987. No appeal is field against this W.A.No.1420 of 1987 and the same has become final as no appeal in W.A.No.1420 of 1987 was filed by the Government and these findings of the Hon'ble Division Bench are binding on the Government. Now these issues cannot be questioned or reopened at this juncture.
Addl. Issue No.(c): Whether the Respondents in C.R.P.No.6708/2003 have the locus standi to contest the application of the Petitioners herein for grant of Sale Certificate U/s 38-E or 38-A of the Tenancy Act or they may only approach the Civil Courts or other appropriate forum to canvas their rights, if any, in the property purchased by them.
Finding: The Respondents No.8 to 72 in C. R.P. No. 6708/2003 and batch are strangers and purchasers of plots and they have no right or locus standi against the Protected tenants and the legal heirs of the Protected tenants. As such they cannot contest the application of the petitioners for grant of Certificate of Ownership U/s.38E or U/s.38A of the Tenancy Act. Therefore the cause of action left to the Respondents No.8 to 72 in C.R.P No 6708/2003 and batch is to knock the doors of the Civil Court to canvass their rights, if any. This issue also decided in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondents No.8 to 72 in C.R.P. No. 6708/2003 and batch and Respondent No.13.
Addl.Issue No.(d): Whether the orders dated: 9.12.1975 of the Land Reforms Tribunal determining the holding of the declarant M/s Kastopa Corporation which has attained finality extinguishes the rights of the Petitioners in C.R.P. No. 6708/2003, if any, under the Tenancy Act? and
19 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
(e) If the Petitioners in C.R.P.No.6708/2003 are found entitled Ownership Certificate U/s.38E of Tenancy Act would their rights to purchase U/s.38 or 38-A of the said Act get exhausted?
Finding: (a) In view of the above findings of the Hon'ble High Court and decision of the Government dated: 19.10.1994 the petitioners herein who are the petitioners in C.R.P.No.6708/2003 are entitled Ownership Certificate U/s.38-E of the Tenancy Act for an area of Ac.42.24 guntas as discussed above over the land in Survey Nos. 51 to 53 part which Survey numbers never surrendered U/s 19 as per the records of Gachibowli village originally held by Ilyas Burni Pattadar now being claimed by M/s Kastopa Corporation and as such the petitioners Sl.Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 20 to 30 in C.R.P.No.6708/2003 are entitled for issue of Certificate of Ownership U/s 38E of Tenancy Act but not Sale Certificate U/s 38A of Tenancy Act as held above.
The vested tenancy rights of the predecessors of petitioner to question the Irregular orders issued under the Land Reforms Act is not shut under the law. Their right shall continue to question the incorrect order as such the right of tenancy prevails over the orders passed under Ceiling Act. Addl. Issue No.(f): Is it permissible in law to grant a Joint Certificate either U/s.38E or U/s 38-A of the Tenancy Act to several persons claiming to be Protected tenants?
Finding: There is no prohibition in law to issue of Joint Ownership Certificate U/s 38E of Tenancy Act to Protected tenants and their legal heirs who are the petitioners Sl.No.1,3,5,6,12,13 and 20 to 30 herein, duly following the procedure formulated therein. [Addl. Issue No.g): Whether the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents 8-72 in CRP No. 6708/2003 are violative of S. 38-D of the Act and if so, whether the sale deeds are void ?] [Ellipsis] Findings: This issue is already been answered at issue No.4 formulated by Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.3054/2006 at Para No.32 of this order By the above orders, this authority has meticulously restricted its powers to decide the issue as framed by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and passed orders holding that the petitioner through their predecessors are having protected tenancy rights in respect of lands Ac.42.24 gts out of Sy.Nos.51, 52 & 53 part. Further, in view of the findings of the Hon'ble High Court in its order dt 25.02.2013 at para 95(f) the land admeasuring Ac.137.16 gts. in respect of Sy.Nos.35-37, 40, 42-47 and 53 part of Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, since already been vested with the Govt, which attained finality the petitioner are precluded from claiming any right over the said lands. The claim and objections filed by the other respondents herein is rejected. However, if they are so advised, they may file civil suit in competent civil court.
As held at para 18 Issue relating to CC.No.264/w/1975, declarations filed by M/s. Kastopa Corporation in respect of lands of Ac.190.17 gts out of Sy. Nos. 35-37, 40, 42 to 47 and 50 to 53 of Gachibowli village, 20 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Serilingampally Mandal would be dealt separately on Land Reforms aspect and thus the enquiry on said issue is deferred."
13. Assailing the order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the RDO, the respondents in these Revisions filed appeals vide Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act on the file of Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District (Appellate Authority), and the same were allowed vide common order dated 24.09.2016 by setting aside the orders of the RDO, wherein it was observed as follows:
"Answer to the issues in para-94 of the judgment in CRP No.6708/2023
a) Whether G.O.Ms.No.183. MA dt.24.3.2000 issued under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 notifying the subject lands as "residential use" zone takes away the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy Act in the light of S.102(e) of the Tenancy Act?
At the outset, it is useful to extract the relevant provisions of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Sec.2 (j) of the A.P.(Telangana Area )Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. defines 'agricultural land' as under.
Sec.2(j) "Land" means agricultural land whether alienated or unalienated and include land used for purposes subservient to agricultural and all benefits arising out of such land and things thereon attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Section 102 of the said Act deals with certain lands and areas to which the provisions of lands A.P. (TA) Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1950 have no application. The relevant portion of Section 102 i.e. Section 102 (e) reads as under:
(a)....
(b)....
(c)....
(d)....
(e) to any area which Government may, from time to time, by notification in the (Official Gazette) specify as being reserved for urban, non- agricultural or industrial development.
(f)....
(g)....
21 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch It is clear from the above provisions that the provisions of A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 are applicable to the lands which are mainly used and reserved for agriculture purpose. The object of the Act appears to be that the cultivable rights of the tenants/protected tenants over the agricultural lands are only protected under the said Act. The provisions of the said Tenancy Act will not be attracting to the lands, after its conversion from 'agriculture' to 'non agriculture'.
The Government notified the subject lands herein for 'Residential use' by issuing G.O. Ms. No.183 MA dt.24.3.2000 under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975.
In view of the said notification, the subject lands cease to be 'agricultural lands' within the meaning of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Consequently, the Tribunals/Authorities under the Act would cease to have jurisdiction over the subject lands.
Therefore, the findings of the RDO, Rajendranagar Division that notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.183 MA & UD Dept dt.24-03-2000 would not divest the subsisting vested the rights of tenants is not correct and accordingly set aside.
b) Whether the report of RDO dt.27.7.1981 has any value ? and whether the said official is conferred any jurisdiction to determine who is the protected tenant in the light of Rule 14 r/w Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950?
The Hon'ble High Court in its order dt.17-02-1981 in W.P.No.4590/1980, directed that the enquiry shall be made by the District Collector, Hyderabad or any such other Officer as may be designated by him, not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer to ascertain whether the petitioners (in the said writ petition) were declared as protected tenants of the lands concerned including Sy. Nos.46 & 47? and if so, under what provision and when? and did the petitioners or any of them or their predecessors in interest surrender their tenancy rights according to law, and if so, which of them, when and in which proceedings? Said enquiry officer was directed to complete the enquiry within 4 months from the date of the receipt of the order and the implementation of the G.O Rt. No.594 will depend upon the said report of the District Collector or the Officer designated by him as the case may be.
The District Collector, Hyderabad in turn, designated the RDO, Chevella Division to conduct on enquiry.
Thus, the authority of RDO, Chevella Division to conduct on enquiry has derived from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No.4590/1980. The job of RDO, Chevella Division is limited to the issues ordained by the Hon'ble High Court in its said judgment. The enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer (Ram Reddy) was not in the capacity as a Tribunal or any Authority under the provisions of A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 or the Rules framed there under. The report of the RDO, Chevella Division dt.27- 07-1981, which is submitted pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No.4590/1980, is of the value of merely a piece of 22 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the rights of the parties, but not as statutory order passed by a statutory authority under the Act. The report of the enquiry officer (Ram Reddy) is bereft of any statutory sanction.
In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the RDO, Chevella Division is conferred with jurisdiction to determine, who is protected tenant under Rules 14 and 26 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950.
The findings of the Authority below on the said issue is incorrect and accordingly set aside.
c) Whether respondents in CRP.No.6708/2003 have the locus standi to contest the application of the petitioners therein for grant of sale certificate u/s.38-E or 38-A of the Tenancy Act or they may only approach the civil court or other appropriate forum to canvass their rights, if any, in the property purchased by them?
The Respondents No.2 to 78 in CRP No.6708/2003 claimed to have purchased the land in sy.no.51 to 53 through regd. sale deeds jointly executed by both the land holders Kastopa Corporation and the protected tenants namely. M/s Kastopa Corporation and Protected Tenants having thus alienated the land approached the RDO, Chevella Division for grant of sales certificate under/ section 38-A of the Tenancy Act, 1950 in respect of the same lands.
Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 deals with the bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The said provisions of the Section 99 of the Act is extracted below "99. Bar of jurisdiction 1) Save as provided in this Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government.
(2) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court ".
The question as to whether the protected tenants are entitled for grant of sales certificate u/s 38-E or section 38-A of the Tenancy Act, 1950 exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals under the Act. The Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to determine such questions, since civil court jurisdiction is expressly barred under section 90 of the Act. The petitioners, being successor-in-interest of the land holders, have every right to question the grant of sales certificate issued under section 38-E or 38-A of the Tenancy Act, 1950 in favour of the petitioners. However, in the given case, the subject lands are notified for 'residential use' by G.O. Ms.No.180 MA dt.24-03-2000 under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. As such, the subject lands are no more governed by the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1950. In the given circumstances, Civil Court would be the appropriate forum for the respondents to get their right adjudicated qua subject lands.
23 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch The findings of the RDO, Chevella Division that the respondents therein and petitioners herein, are strangers to the subject lands and have no right or locus standi against the protected tenants or their legal heirs is not correct, accordingly said finding is set aside.
d) Whether the order dt.9.12.1975 of the LRT determining the holding of the declarant M/s. Kastopa Corporation which has attained finality extinguishes the rights of the petitioners in CRP.No.6708/2003, if any, under the Tenancy Act ?
This issue has to be examined in the light of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West), took place in CC No.264/W/75, to which the petitioners became parties by filing objection petitions. After M/s, Kastopa Corporation filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West) declaring its holding of Ac.190-17 gts. in Sy.No.35 to 37, 40, 42 to 46 & 50 to 53 of Gachi Bowli village vide CC No.264/W/75, the RDO, Hyderabad (West) published provisional list of Protected Tenants eligible for ownerships rights u/S.38-E of AP (TA) Tenancy Act, 1950 namely Khanamet Balaiah, Gadda Mysaiah, Manikonda Kondaiah and others in respect of Sy.No.37, 40, 42 to 47 and 51 to 53. When the said provisional list was transferred to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West for necessary action, M/s.Kastopa Corporation filed objections to the said provisional list. The protected tenants Khanamet Balaiah, Gadda Mysaiah, Manikonda Kondaiah and others also filed claim petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West) for issuance of Ownership Certificates u/S.38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950. During the said proceedings, M/s.Kastopa Corporation and Protected Tenants filed compromise petition on 30-05- 1975. The Protected Tenants waived their Tenancy Rights over the land admeasuring ac. 157.03 gts. in Sy.No.37, 40, 42 to 47 and 51 to 53 of GachiBowli Village and pleaded for dismissal of their claim petition. In view of the said compromise, the Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West passed orders on 31-05-1975 in LRW/47/75 holding that the names of all the protected tenants were rounded off from the final tenancy register of 1950 and all the protected tenants have surrendered their tenancy rights during the year 1965 and 1966 and the same has been accepted by the Tahsildar. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West dismissed the petition filed by Gadde Mysaiah and others for grant of ownership certificate under Sec.38-E of the Tenancy Act. Consequently, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West ordered for deletion of the names of protected tenants published in the provisional list and directed for issuance of "nil" final list under Rule- 4(3) of 38-E Rules. The said orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West) became final.
The Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West), by its order dt.09-12- 1975 in CC No.264/W/75, declared M/s. Kastopa Corporation as surplus holder by 2.2862 SH (Standard Holdings) i.e. Ac.137-17 gts. The appeal LRA No.10/1976 filed by M/s. Kastopa Corporation against the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal passed in CC No.264/W/75 was dismissed on 6.4.1976. So also, the Revision Petition vide CRP (SR) No.24698/1976 filed by M/s Kastopa Corporation against the orders in LRA NO.10/1976 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 28-04-1976. No further appeal was carried against the same. Thus, the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West declaring M/s. Kastopa 24 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Corporation as holding excess of 2.2862 SH has become final. The Protected Tenants also did not agitate against the said orders of Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West.
M/s.Kastopa Corporation offered to surrender Ac.137-17 gts of land in Sy.Nos.35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 & 53 (Part) towards surplus holding of 2.2862 SH. Notice in form No.VIII under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Act was issued on 4.9.1976 calling for objections on the surrender offered by the declarant. This notice was published as required under the Rules but no objections were filed. On 6.10.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West passed orders U/S.10(3) of the Ceiling Act approving the surrender proposed by Kastopa Corporation. On 13.10.1976, possession of the surrendered land to the extent of Ac.137.17 Gts was taken over by the Revenue Inspector, Lingampalli by conducting due panchanama. On 24.1.1978, a notice U/Rule 12(2) was issued stating that the lands mentioned therein have vested in the State U/S.11 of the A.P. Land Reforms (CoAH) Act, 1973 and invited claims for compensation in respect of the surrendered land. The said notice was published in the A.P. Gazette on 11.5.1989. None of the alleged protected tenants filed any claim petitions. In April, 1978, notice u/s.16 of the A.P. Land Reforms (CoAH) Act, 1973 was issued stating that the Land Reforms Tribunal is proposing to determine the amount payable for the lands surrendered u/s.15 of the said Act and inviting all persons having any interest in the lands to appeal and make pleas for determination of the amount and adduce evidence in that behalf. At this stage also, protected tenants have not filed any claims. In view of the said proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West Division, the land admeasuring Ac.137-17 cents in Sy. No.35 to 37, 40, 42 to 27 and 53 (part) of Gachibowli village remained absolutely vested in the State and the State is in possession of the said extent of the property.
Therefore, the rights of the petitioners, if any, in subject lands, remained extinguished. The petitioners, by their conduct, are estopped to re-agitate for the rights, which they had forgone.
The findings of the Lower Court Authority that the tenancy rights of the predecessors of the petitioner are not shut under the law and their rights of the tenancy prevails over the Ceiling Act is totally incorrect, accordingly the said findings are set aside.
e) If the petitioners in CRP.No.6708/2003 are found entitled to ownership certificate u/s.38-E of the Tenancy Act, would their right to purchase u/s.38 or 38-A of the said Act get exhausted?
The scope of Section 38-A & Section 38-E are quite different as discussed herein above. In case of application of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, ownership rights in the lands held by the protected tenants would be transferred by the operation of law with effected from the notified date, provided the requirement of Sec.38(7) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 are satisfied. Whereas in case of Sale Certificate to be issued u/sec 38-A of the Tenancy Act, 1950, it is not necessary that the requirement of Sec.38(7) shall be satisfied. The transfer of the land u/s 38-A is in the nature of private sale, when either the land holder or the protect tenant or both apply to the Tribunal for issuance of Sales Certificate based on agreement.
25 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Therefore, the provisions of section 38-E and 38-A do not go together and if the ownership rights are transferred u/section 38-E, no sale certificate could be issued in respect of the same land u/s 38-A of the Act.
f) Is it permissible in law to grant of a joint certificate either u/s.38-E or S.38- A of the Tenancy Act to several persons claiming to be protected tenants?
There is no prohibition under the Act for issuance of Joint certificate under section 38-E or under section 38-A in favour of several persons claiming to be protected tenants, provided the requirement of respective provisions are satisfied.
g) Whether the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents 8-72 in CRP No.6708/2003 are violative of S.38-D of the Act and if so, whether the sale deeds are void?
In the given case, it is not that the land holder alienated the lands on their own in favour of the respondent-8 to 72 in CRP No.6708/2003. The alleged tenants i.e. respondents herein are parties to the regd. sale deeds executed in favour of the prospective purchasers. Thereby, the respondents (petitioners) have waived their rights available u/sec 38-D of the Tenancy Act, 1950.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the regd. sale deeds jointly executed by the land holders and the alleged tenants in favour of respondent-8 to 72 in CRP NO.6708/2003 are void as violative of section 38-D of the Tenancy Act, 1950.
Hence, the findings of the Lower Court Authority that the sale deeds are void is Violative of Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act, is not correct. Answer to the issues no.1 to 4, 6, 9 and 10 formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal No.3054/2006.
1. Whether the respondents or their predecessors were, at any stage, recorded as protected tenants in respect of land measuring Ac.190 Acres 17 gts, situated in Sy. Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42-47, 50-53 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad or any portion thereof?
2. Whether the findings recorded by the RDO in his enquiry report dt: 27-07- 1981 in respect of (a) the status of respondents as protected tenants under S.37-A and (b) absence of proof of surrender in accordance with S.19 of the Act, were challenged by M/s. Kastopa Corporation? If not whether the said findings can be challenged by the successors in interest of M/s. Kastopa Corporation?
3. In case, questions No.1 and 2 above, are answered in the affirmative, whether the respondents or their predecessors had validly surrendered their tenancy rights in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. If so, in which proceedings and qua which survey numbers, was the surrender made ?
Issues No.1 to 3 are interconnected, as such discussed together. As per the tenancy records, the names of respondent's predecessor were recorded as protected tenants in respect of Sy.
26 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch No.37, 40, 42, 43 & 47, of which, Smt. Lingamma was the landholder. However, all the protected tenants have surrendered their PT rights in favour of Lingamma and the same was accepted by the Tahsildar u/s 19 of the Tenancy Act, 1950.
Subsequently, when the RDO, Chevella Division published provisional list of protected tenants eligible for ownership rights u/s. 38-E of Tenancy Act, 1950, namely Kanammet Balaiah & others (Respondents) in respect of Sy.No.37, 40, 42 to 47 and 51 to 53 held by Pattedar Ilias Burni and the list was transferred to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad(west) for necessary action, said Kannamet Balaiah and other entered into compromise and by waiving the tenancy rights over the land admeasuring Ac.157-03 gts in the aforesaid Sy. Nos, pleaded for dismissal of their claim petition filed for issuance of 38-E certificate. Consequently, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West) ordered for deletion of the names of the protected tenants published in the provisional list and directed for issuance of 'Nil' final list under Rule 4 (3) of the 38-E Rules, which became final. Therefore, the subject lands were not held by any protected tenant as on the date of vesting of the property in the State under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (CoAH) Act, 1973. The State took over possession of Ac137-17 gts the land admeasuring dogs. The enquiry officer (Sri. Ram Reddy), in his enquiry report, noted that Protected Tenants are not in possession of the property and lands are in possession and custody of the State. Therefore, the findings of the RDO, Rajendranagar Mandal that the respondents are holding PT rights over the subject lands are factually incorrect, as such, said findings of the authority below are rejected.
The issue is answered accordingly.
4. Whether the sale of plots from the year 1986 onwards by M/s.Kastopa Corporation and the protected tenants in favour of the appellants and petitioners in the concerned SLPs are valid having regard inter-alia to the provisions of the Tenancy Act ? Answered above.
6. Whether there was conversion of the land use for house sites and non- agricultural purposes in respect of the lands in question in accordance with law and if so, what is the effect of such conversion on the rights of the parties and from which date would the conversion be effective?
Answered above.
9. Having obtained a consent order dated 20-09-1999 (Justice A.S. Bhate's order) in W.P.No.14708 of 1999 for grant of rights under S. 38-A in respect of land in Sy. Nos.46, 47 and 53 (Paiki) to the extent of 37 acres, whether the respondents could mutually agree for issue of 38-A sale Certificates qua land in Sy. Nos.51, 52 and part 53 sold to the petitioners herein for valuable consideration? Answered above.
27 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
10. Whether the respondents are entitled to certificates Us/38-A over Sy. Nos.51, 52 & 53?
Answered above."
14. Aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 24.09.2016 passed in Case No.F2/192/2014 and batch by the Appellate Authority/Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, the tenants filed statutory revisions vide C.R.P.No.5279 of 2016 and batch on the file of this Court. Writ Petition No.11157 of 2019 is also filed seeking similar relief. One of the tenants also filed Writ Petition No.6759 of 2017 seeking to declare the inaction on the part of officials of GHMC in removing the illegal structures made by the unofficial respondents inspite of issuance of notice No.2702/TPS/C-11/WZ/GHMC/2017 as illegal and for other appropriate reliefs.
15. W.P.No.3860 of 2008 is filed seeking to declare the exemption orders vide G.O.Ms.Nos.1816 dated 18.10.2005 and 2183 dated 27.12.2005 issued by the State Government in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 53 part of Gachibowli Village as contrary to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6093 and 7013 of 2006 and the status quo orders dated 08.09.2006 and for other appropriate reliefs.
16. As per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Civil Revision Petition No.5279 of 2016 & batch and Writ Petitions were 28 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch clubbed together and listed before this Court for hearing. These matters have been heard on different dates and reserved for orders. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective parties sought permission to place written submissions/reply submissions before this Court and the same were received by the Registry and the latest one being 10.04.2025 i.e, before Summer Vacation, 2025.
17. Considered the submissions of Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy, Mr.E.Madan Mohan Rao, Mr.J.Prabhakar, Mr.E.Ajay Reddy, Mr.Harender Pershad, Mr.R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, Mr.B.Chandrasen Reddy, Mr.A.Venkatesh, Mr.K.R.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsels; Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao, Mr.B.Venkata Rama Rao, Mr.S.Sharath Kumar, Mr. Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsels along with their respective Advocates on record. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVISION PETITIONERS:
18. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Harender Pershad, appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the Special Grade Deputy Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), being the Original Authority under the Tenancy Act, 1950 after verifying the final tenancy register prepared under the provisions of the Act, categorically held that as per the records, the names of Khanamet Balaiah, Manikonda Kondaiah, Dharpally Bhabaiah and Ganjayi 29 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Narasaiah were recorded as Protected Tenants (PTs) in respect of lands in Survey Nos.51, 52, and 53, as well as other survey numbers. It is submitted that the original authority/RDO in his report observed that, following the amendment to Section 37 of the Tenancy Act vide Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955, the said persons were declared Protected Tenants under Section 37A of the Tenancy Act for lands admeasuring Ac.153.07 gts in Survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, and 53, situated at Gachibowli Village, held by the pattadar Ilyas Burni. The names of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest were recorded in the tenancy register prepared under Section 37A of the Tenancy Act in the year 1958. The RDO was directed to submit a report regarding the nature and classification of the subject lands in W.P.No.4590 of 1980, and accordingly, the enquiry report dated 27.07.1981 was submitted. The respondents, having failed to challenge the enquiry report or its findings are estopped from disputing the nature of lands or the tenancy rights of the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the landlords and alleged purchasers, in an attempt to bypass the mandatory requirements under Section 38D of the Tenancy Act, acknowledged in their sale deeds that the lands were tenanted and recognized the Protected Tenancy rights of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the appellate authority without adverting to the statutory provisions and evidence placed on 30 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch record, erroneously reversed the orders dated 15.10.2013 passed by the RDO. It is argued that since the predecessors of the petitioners were recognized PTs under Section 37A for lands in Survey Nos. 51, 52, and 53 (supported by the certified copy of the Tenancy Register filed in CRP No.5279 of 2016), any sale deeds executed in violation of Section 38D are void ab initio and non-est in law. It is contended that the Tenancy Act was enacted to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants and to protect the rights of tenants. Therefore, any alienation of land without following the procedure prescribed under Section 38D of the Tenancy Act is impermissible, particularly when the land is vested with ownership rights under Section 38E of the Act and remains subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down under Section 38(7). Thus, sale deeds executed in favour of third parties in violation of these provisions are void, non-est and nullity in law. The learned Senior Counsel emphasized that Section 38D of the Tenancy Act requires a landholder intending to sell tenanted land to issue a written notice to the PT, providing six months time to express willingness to purchase the lands. Any sale deed executed in a concealed manner, even if involving a few PTs represented by alleged power-of-attorneys, does not amount to compliance with Section 38D of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that there is no valid surrender under Section 19(1) of the Act and unless surrender is made in writing and admitted before the Tahsildar, oral 31 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch tenancy surrender is not permissible w.e.f. 04.02.1954. The alleged surrender proceedings mentioned in Lr.No.W/47/35/Vol.I and orders dated 31.05.1975 are not binding, nor do they constitute any estoppel. The surrender proceedings referred to in File Nos.A3/10805/64 dated 18.02.1965, A3/3749/75 dated 02.04.1965, and A4/2556/66 dated 16.10.1966, were the basis for rejecting Section 38E ownership claims. However, as per the 1958 tenancy register, the names of the PTs were recorded again which shows continuation of the tenancy and non-surrender of the lands. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the alleged surrender in File No.A4/2556/66 was in respect of lands in Survey Nos.37, 42, 43, and 44, totaling Ac.63.80 gts is not relating to the subject lands in Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53 (part). It is contended that as on the date of alleged surrender, Lingamma had already alienated the land in favour of Ilyas Burni and the Lingamma has lost all her rights as pattadar in view of execution of sale deed dated 22.04.1940. The orders dated 31.05.1975 ignored the distinction between surrender under Section 34 and rights under Section 37/37A. Surrender under Section 34 cannot be deemed to be surrender of PT rights under Section 37A without specific reference. It is further contended that as on the notified date i.e, 01.01.1973, Section 38E had the effect of statutorily transferring ownership to the tenants. Once such transfer takes place by virtue of the statute itself, there are no tenancy rights left to 32 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch surrender. Hence, the alleged compromise dated 31.05.1975 is non- est and hit by Section 33 of the Tenancy Act. With respect to G.O.Ms.No.183 MA & UD dated 24.03.2000 issued under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, it was argued that unless a notification is issued under Section 102(e) of the Tenancy Act, the land continues to be governed by the Tenancy Act, and inclusion of the same within the municipal limits does not change its character of agricultural use. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that petitioners are entitled for issuance of ownership certificates under Section 38E, as they qualify as PTs under Section 37A as on the date when the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 (for short "Amendment Act, 1955") came into force. It is further submitted that at the time of filing a declaration under the CoAH Act, 1973, the landlord Kastopa Corporation possessed Ac.190.17 gts, exceeding both standard and family holdings as prescribed. Therefore, the land held by the petitioners as PTs must be excluded under Section 13 of the CoAH Act. Placing reliance on Section 4 of the CoAH Act, it is stated that the ceiling for a family unit of up to five members is one standard holding. Thus the computation of two holdings in favour of Kastopa Corporation under Section 38(7) of the Tenancy Act is erroneous and illegal. It is contended that the consent order in W.P.No.14708 of 1999 dated 20.09.1999, regarding issuance of certificates under Section 38A for lands in Sy.Nos. 51, 52, 33 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and 53(part), does not bar issuance of 38E certificates. Section 38A specifically relaxes the restrictions under Section 38(7) and permits sale of entire land. The Tenancy Act also recognizes joint tenancy rights, and denying certificates under Sections 38E/38A solely on the ground of joint cultivation contradicts the intention of the legislature and defeat the purpose of enactment. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the enquiry report dated 27.07.1981, relied and approved in W.A. No.1420 of 1987 is binding and the same cannot be revisited in revision proceedings. It is pointed out that the impugned order was passed on 24.09.2016 despite the appellate authority being on leave (G.O.Rt.No.2079 GAD Spl.O.A. Department, dated 20.09.2016), which raises serious doubt with regard to its validity. Even assuming that the tenants are not entitled to Section 38E certificates due to the landlord's holding, they remain tenants under law, and unless the property was first offered to sale to the PTs under Section 38D, the landlord cannot alienate the same to third parties. In support of above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others 1; Devanath Singh vs. Poosu Mallaiah 2; Commissioner of Wealth- Tax vs. B. Nathmal Vaid 3; Sada vs. Tahsildar, Utnoor 4; Islamia Arabia College, Kurnool vs. Mrs. Shanta Bai 5; Samala Venkaiah 1 (1955) 1 SCR 117 2 1976 (2) A.P.L.J 91 3 1983 SCC OnLine Mad 331 4 AIR (1988) A.P 77 = 1987 (2) A.P.L.J 397 5 1988 SCC Online A.P. 50; 1988 (2) ALT 74 34 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch vs. Bakka Nagaiah 6; Kotaiah vs. Property Association of the Baptist Churches (Private) Ltd. 7; Allahabad Development Authority vs. Nasiruzzaman and Ors. 8; P.Neelakanteswaramma and others vs Uppari Muthamma 9; Maroti vs. Devrao 10; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By LR's and another vs. BD Agarwal and others 11; Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs. K.Suresh Reddy 12; Mir Sardar Ali vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Kesera Mandal 13; Ashok Leyland vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others 14; N.Srinivasa Rao vs. Special Court 15; Pushpa Patel Chavda vs. MRO, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District16;
B.Bal Reddy vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy 17; Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 18; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 19; Thota Sridhar Reddy vs. Mandala Ramulamma 20 and Gulf Oil Corporation Limited vs. State of Telangana 21.
19. Mr.E.Ajay Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Kastopa Corporation, submitted that M/s. Kastopa Corporation has purchased land admeasuring Ac.157-03 guntas in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42 to 47, 51, 52 and 53 situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 02.09.1961 bearing document No.2500 of 1961 from the legal heirs of Late Ilyas Burni. Subsequently, the Kastopa Corporation also purchased land admeasuring Ac.33-14 guntas in 6 1988 (1) A.P.L.J 149 7 (1989) 3 SCC 424 8 (1996) 6 SCC 424 9 1998(1) ALD 234 10 (1999) 1 SCC 638 11 AIR 2003 SC 2686 12 2003 (7) SCC 667 13 (2004) 2 ALD 526 = (2004) 4 ALT 443 14 AIR 2004 SC 2836 15 (2006) 4 SCC 214 16 2010 SCC Online AP 754 = (2010) 6 ALT 693 17 2016 (15) SCC 102 18 Judgment dated 10.12.2024 passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 330/2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court 19 (2019) 17 SCC 82 20 (2021) 16 SCC 1 21 2022 SCC Online SC 1209 35 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Sy.Nos. 35, 36, and 50 under document No.498 of 1964 dated 28.09.1964 from the legal heirs of Late Ilyas Burni. Thus, the Kastopa Corporation became the absolute owner and possessor of total land admeasuring Ac.190.17 guntas. It is further submitted that before execution of the sale deeds, vendors obtained specific permission from the Tahsildar under Sections 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act and thereafter the sale deeds were registered. In the Land Reforms Tribunal proceedings, it was confirmed that Protected Tenants existed in respect of land admeasuring Ac.157-03 guntas in Sy.Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42 to 47, 50, 51, 52, and 53, but they surrendered their tenancy rights under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act in the year 1965. Out of the total land holding of Ac.190-17 guntas, an extent of Ac.59-24 guntas in Sy.Nos. 50, 51, 52, and 53 (Part) was declared as retainable land, and an extent of Ac.137-03 guntas in the remaining survey numbers was declared as surplus land, which was vested in the Government. It is contended that although the Kastopa Corporation owned Ac.190-14 guntas of land, in the LRT proceedings, the total extent was wrongly shown as Ac.196-17 guntas, resulting in an excess of Ac.6-38 guntas wrongly calculated to the holding of the declarant. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.02.2013 passed in CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch, had directed the RDO to conduct a fresh enquiry to ascertain whether there were 36 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch any Protected Tenants in respect of the said land, and if so, to identify them and issue ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act for Ac.36-25 gts from the retainable land in Sy. Nos. 51, 52, and 53. Pursuant to the said remand, the RDO passed order dated 15-10-2013 granting 38-E certificates for an extent of Ac.42-24 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 51, 52, and 53(part) from the retainable land. It is submitted that Smt.Rehana Begum and others filed LRA No. 4 of 2013 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, questioning the initial orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 09.12.1975 in the declaration filed by the respondent. The LRAT, vide orders dated 30-10-2014, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the LRT to decide the rights of the Appellants based on evidence and after impleading necessary parties. In the said remand proceedings, Sri Habeeb Baig filed his claim, asserting that he was the legatee of Sri Fazal-Ur-Rab Baig, who had purchased land in Sy.No.44 admeasuring Ac.17-20 guntas under registered sale deed in the year 1956, and contended that the said land was wrongly included in the declaration of M/s.Kastopa Corporation, which had purchased the same in the year 1961. The LRT, vide orders dated 07.10.2016, held that it was not competent to decide the rights of inter se parties and noted that the said land had already vested with the Government as surplus land. The Tribunal advised the parties to approach the appropriate forum. Aggrieved by the same, Sri Habeeb 37 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Baig filed LRA No. 6 of 2017 on the file of LRAT and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, CRP No.1372 of 2020 was filed on the file of this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 28-09-2021, set aside the orders of LRAT and directed the LRT to delete the lands in Sy.No.44 admeasuring Ac.17-20 guntas from the declarant's holding in CC No.264/W/75. The said orders have attained finality as no appeal was filed. Consequently, the said extent of Ac.17-20 guntas in Sy.No.44 has to be deleted from the holding of the respondent, and the LRT is required to re-compute the holding accordingly, reverting back an equivalent extent of land from the surplus land to the declarant. Subsequently, LRT-cum-RDO reopened the Land Reforms Case in CC No.264/W/1975, wherein the respondent filed a claim petition seeking (a) deletion of Ac.6-38 guntas wrongly shown in the declarant's holding, (b) deletion of Ac.42-12 guntas categorised as pote kharab lands in revenue records, and (c) deletion of Ac. 42-24 guntas in Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53/P already covered by the 38-E certificates issued to Protected Tenants. It is submitted that the orders dated 15-10-2013 were set aside by the Joint Collector vide order dated 24.09.2016 in Case No.F2/5408/13 and batch. The learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the Hon'ble Division Bench in CRP No 6708 of 2003 and batch had not discussed the pote kharab lands at all, and therefore, as per statutory mandate, the pote kharab lands included in the declarant's holding must be deleted, 38 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and an equivalent extent of land must be reverted back to the declarant from the surplus land vested with the State. It is pointed out that the LRT's finding that all tenants had surrendered their rights in 1964 was incorrect. The RDO, passed order dated 15-10- 2013 pursuant to the remand order and clarified that surrender was only in respect of Sy. Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 47, and 50, and there was no surrender in respect of Sy.Nos.44, 45, 46, 51, 52, and 53. The orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench attained finality in view of setting aside earlier orders as per the observations made in Para No.95(b) of judgment. It is submitted that the RDO ultimately held that there are four branches of tenants entitled to 38-E or 38-A certificates for the land admeasuring Ac.42-24 guntas from the retainable land in Sy. Nos. 51, 52, and 53. Thus the learned Senior Counsel strenuously supported the case of revision petitioners and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order in Case No.F2/5408/2013, dated 24.09.2016, passed by Joint Collector and restore the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the RDO.
20. Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that M/s.Kastopa Corporation had originally filed a declaration under Section 8(1) of the CoAH Act, 1973 asserting ownership over land admeasuring Ac.190-17 gts situated at Gachibowli, acquired under two registered sale deeds from the legal 39 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch heirs of Late Ilyas Burni. Upon enquiry, the Land Reforms Tribunal in its order dated 09.12.1975 computed 3.2862 Standard Holdings (SH) and directed surrender of 2.2862 SH as surplus land and the said order attained finality after dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition by this Court. It is argued that the declarant surrendered Ac.137-17 gts on 05.05.1976 and possession was taken on 13.10.1976, which was subsequently vested with the State. Thereafter, in the year 1979, the Government leased part of the surrendered land to an educational institution, which lead to file writ petitions by the protected tenants, including the predecessor of respondent No.7. Pursuant to orders in W.P.No.4590 of 1980, the RDO conducted a thorough enquiry and issued a report dated 27.07.1981 confirming tenancy rights under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act for Ac.157-03 gts., covering Survey Nos. 37, 40, 42 to 47, 51, and 53, originally held by Ilyas Burni. It is submitted that this Court in W.P.No.4059 of 1982, held that the protected tenants are entitled to ownership certificates under Section 38-E for Ac. 73-03 gts., which was affirmed in W.A.No.1420 of 1987 and the said order attained finality. Thereafter, the RDO issued certificates on 25.04.1995. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal upheld the same and dismissed the appeal filed by the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms. The declarant later sought reopening of proceedings in 1996, but the Tribunal's interim orders were set aside in appeal. This Court in CRP No.3755 of 1997, while allowing the 40 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch revision, directed re-computation of holdings excluding the lands covered by 38-E certificates and Pote Kharab areas. The LRT revised its computation on 18.02.1999, ultimately holding that only 0.6236 SH was surplus, directing surrender of specific land in Sy.Nos.46, 47 and 53. It is further submitted that subsequent writs petitions and appeals culminated in a Division Bench judgment dated 25.02.2013 remanding the matter to the RDO to consider the unresolved questions framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3054 of 2006, particularly relating to protected tenancy rights, validity of alienations, and jurisdictional issues. The RDO passed detailed order dated 15.10.2013 confirming protected tenancy and ownership rights under Sec.38-E and 38-A of the Tenancy Act, holding that the petitioners were entitled to ownership certificates. The Joint Collector, however, without properly addressing the mandate of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of RDO on erroneous grounds, including the misconceived assumption that tenancy rights were surrendered placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 24.03.2000, and alleging estoppel on account of sale deeds executed in violation of Section 38D. The Senior Counsel pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Bal Reddy v. Teegala Narayana Reddy's case (supra) and Kotaiah v. Property Assn. of the Baptist Churches (P) Ltd's case (supra) had held that alienations in contravention of Section 38-D 41 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch were void ab initio and that tenancy rights could not be extinguished without compliance with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. It is contended that the Joint Collector committed a fundamental error by assuming jurisdiction over issues already settled by the Division Bench of this Court and the LRT, failed to appreciate that ceiling surrender did not override tenancy rights, as held in K. Laxmaiah v. Special Tribunal 22. It is further submitted that neither the plot purchasers nor the Diamond Hills Welfare Association had any locus standi to challenge grant of certificates under Section 38-E or 38-A, which were based on longstanding protected tenancy rights recognized in prior judicial proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel while supporting the case of the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 24.09.2016 is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside, and that the RDO's order dated 15.10.2013 should be upheld. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following decisions:
Gade Suresh vs. Government of A.P. 23; Bakaram Jangaiah @ Janga Reddy vs. Gunde Laxmamma (died) per LRs 24; Tax Recovery Officer II, Sadar, Nagpur vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (dead) through Shobha Ravindra Nemiwant 25; Choudhari Palkaji vs. Rukmini Devi 26; Kontham Anji Reddy 22 1978 SCC Online AP 25 (Para 11) 23 1976 Supreme(AP) 243 24 1998 SCC OnLine AP 864 25 (1998) 6 SCC 658 26 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 509
42 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch (died) per LRs vs. Nimmagudem Laxmaiah 27; Raj Kishan Pershad and others vs. Joint Collector-I and others 28; V. Ramaswamy vs. State of Telangana 29and A. Kondal Yadav vs. B. Chittamma 30.
21. Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners and placed reliance on decisions in Edukanti Kistamma (dead) through LRs and others vs. S. Venkatareddy (dead) through LRs and others31 and Philip Jeyasingh vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chidambaranar Region, Tuticorin 32.
22. Mr.S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.47 in W.P.No.3860 of 2008 submitted that the respondent has purchased an extent of Ac.1-31 gts in Sy. No. 51 of Gachibowli Village under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2894 of 2003, dated 10.03.2003 and the said land forms part of large extent of Ac.37.16 gts spread over Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53 (part), originally held by protected tenants whose rights have been recognized under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District in File No.F2/5885/2013 is vitiated by serious procedural impropriety and lacks transparency. It is pointed out that hearing of the appeal was concluded on 27 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 485 28 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 493 29 2021 (6) ALT 580 30 2024 Supreme (Telangana) 344 31 2010 (2) ALD 1 (SC) 32 Full Bench Judgment dated 22.01.1992 passed in W.P.No.6191 of 1990 by the Madras High Court 43 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 23.09.2016 upon submission of written arguments by the appellants therein, and yet, the impugned order running into 253 pages was passed within 24 hours thereafter, which raises genuine suspicion about the manner in which the matter was dealt with. It is further submitted that on the date of impugned order i.e., 24.09.2016, the Joint Collector Mr. Rajat Kumar Saini, was on sanctioned leave. This fact is supported by G.O.Rt.No.2079 dated 20.09.2016 issued under the A.I.S. (Leave) Rules, 1955, granting Earned Leave to Mr. Saini from 24.09.2016 to 06.10.2016 (both days inclusive) to travel to Malaysia on private affairs. Therefore, the question naturally arises as to how the Joint Collector, while on leave could have applied his independent mind and authored or signed an order after verification of voluminous record within such a short span of time and therefore, the circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed cast a serious shadow on its credibility. The official records would clearly reveal that the impugned order was prepared much earlier, possibly at the behest of external influences, and the authority merely affixed his signature on 24.09.2016, when he was not in office. In such circumstances, where there is a clear apprehension of extraneous considerations having influenced the adjudicatory process, this Court, being a Court of Record and custodian of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, ought not countenance or sustain such an order. It is also 44 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch submitted that the respondent No.47 is a bona fide purchaser under the registered sale deed and the impugned order prejudicially affects his title, and interest in Ac.1-31 gts in Sy. No. 51. It is further submitted that a registered sale deed cannot be declared void ab initio by an appellate authority under the Tenancy Act. It is further submitted that surrender of tenancy rights must strictly conform to Section 19 of the Act i.e, be in writing and subject to satisfaction of the Tahsildar and no such procedure has been followed in the present case. Further, G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 24.03.2000 reclassifying the lands for residential use does not override the Tenancy Act. Sections 33 and 104 of the Tenancy Act confer overriding effect on all other laws. It is submitted that the impugned order is vitiated by lack of notice, violation of natural justice, excessive jurisdiction, and suppression of material evidence. The appellate authority failed to appreciate each issue independently and simply echoed previous findings without applying its mind properly and thereby causing grave prejudice. The learned counsel relying upon the Proceedings No.E1/2645/76 dated 08.11.1996 of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad submitted that Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these revisions and petitioners in W.P.No.3860/2008, has appeared as counsel for the Kastopa Corporation in the Declaration filed before the ULC Authority and submitted that the 45 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch lands are not held by the declarant firm and there are protected firms for the last 40 years and there were conferred tenancy rights under Section 37A of the Tenancy Act and their names were recorded in the Protected Tenancy Register and further, succession was granted on the names of legal representatives of the deceased protected tenants and they are in possession of the said lands. The learned counsel submitted that now in these revisions, Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel cannot change his stand and submit that the protected tenants have already surrendered their lands. Thus the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 24.09.2016 passed in File No.F2/5885/2013 and batch by the appellate authority is illegal, unsustainable and prayed to uphold the rights of the respondent No.47 under the registered sale deed dated 10.03.2003. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
Chandra Shekar Rao and others vs. Balaiah and others 33; Sita Ram (dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Bharat Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives and others 34; J.Meenakshi and another vs. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Puducherry and others 35.
23. Mr. Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.No.11157 of 2019 supported the submissions on behalf of the revision petitioners and relied on the following decisions: 33
SLP (Civil) No.17386-17388 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013 34 (2019) 10 SCC 412 35 2023 0 Supreme (Mad) 2401 46 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Basheshar Nath vs. Commission of Income Tax 36; A.C. Estates vs. Serajuddin 37; Ramchandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Joti Chavare 38; Mukesh Gupta vs. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala39;
Shalimar Tar Products vs. H.C. Sharma 40; Badrinath vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu 41; State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu 42; Babu Parasu Kaikadi vs Babu 43; HCL Kodi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. 44; M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corp. vs. Jahan Khan 45; Deepak Agro Foods vs. State of Rajasthan 46.
24. Mr.K.R.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Ashwani Kumar Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others 47; Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and others 48; Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another 49 and Amar Singh vs. Union of India and others 50.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS:
25. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1-Association in W.P. No.11157 of 2019, submits that the RDO's 36 (1959) Supp. 1 SCR 528, 618.
37(1966) 1 SCR 235 (Para 240 G) 38 (1975) 1 SCC 559 (Para 7) 39 (1987) 4 SCC 525 (Para 12) 40 (1988) 1 SCC 70 (Para 13) 41 (2000) 8 SCC 395 (Paras 26 & 27) 42 (2001) 10 SCC 191 (Para 9) 43 (2004) 1 SCC 681 44 (2005) 7 SCC 791 (Para 32) 45 (2007) 10 SCC 88 (Para 12) 46 (2008) 7 SCC 748 (Para 17) 47 (2003) 11 SCC 584 (Para 12) 48 (2003) 2 SCC 111 (Para 59) 49 (2003) 7 SCC 197 (Para 23) 50 (2011) 7 SCC 69 (Paras 59 and 60) 47 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch order dated 15.09.2013 is without jurisdiction, as it heavily relied on the enquiry report dated 27.07.1981 and subsequent proceedings, which were already declared coram non judice and void ab initio by the Division Bench. He submits that the Division Bench categorically held that only the Tahsildar, not the RDO, is the competent authority under Rule 14 read with Rule 26 of the Tenancy Rules to enquire into issues of succession to deceased protected tenants. Section 38-E certificates granted by the RDO on 25.04.1995 were held to be without jurisdiction, lacking probative value and incapable of supporting claims of protected tenancy. The Division Bench noted discrepancies in the number of protected tenants shown across proceedings, tampering of revenue records, and failure to produce the final tenancy register. It directed the RDO to re-examine whether the 1981 report had any evidentiary value and whether he had jurisdiction to determine protected tenancy claims. However, the RDO wrongly stated that the report was upheld in W.A. No.1420 of 1987 and not set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ignoring that the Division Bench already declared those orders void. The Senior Counsel contends that the RDO did not independently verify records or assess the evidentiary value of the 1981 report and failed to resolve the doubts regarding the identity of the protected tenants. The Joint Collector rightly held that the RDO was not acting in the capacity of a Tribunal under the Tenancy Act, and the report lacks 48 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch statutory sanctity. It is also pointed out that no Section 38-E certificates were ever granted for Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53, and the alleged tenants never challenged the non-grant, thereby extinguishing their claims. The Division Bench, while answering Issues 5, 7, and 8 framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the order dated 31.05.1975 of the LRT attained finality as the alleged protected tenants failed to raise objections despite notices. There were no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation to reopen those proceedings under Section 9-A of the CoAH Act. At Para 54, it was held that the CoAH Act, being a later legislation with a non obstante clause, overrides the Tenancy Act. The LRT has exclusive jurisdiction under the Ceiling Act to determine protected tenancy or valid surrender and need not wait for decisions under the Tenancy Act. At Para 62, it was concluded that lands in Sy. Nos. 35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 vested irrevocably in the State under Section 11 of the CoAH Act and any transactions by alleged protected tenants were void. The RDO, however, failed to consider these aspects and erroneously relied on the report dated 27.07.1981 to extend benefits under Sections 38 and 38-E without examining family holdings, contrary to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Joint Collector rightly concluded that only Ac.36.25 gts retained by Kastopa Corporation could be considered for Section 38-E benefits, and any ownership certificate beyond that extent was illegal. As to 49 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the 38-A certificates granted by the RDO on 28.04.2001, it is submitted that the Division Bench, at Paras 72 and 73, held that applications under Sections 38-A and 38-B cannot be made simultaneously and that no original tenancy records were produced by the applicants. The RDO failed to examine the records or verify ceiling limits and issued orders without notifying purchasers of Diamond Hills, thereby violating natural justice. At Paras 90 and 92, it was held that these orders do not bind such purchasers. Regarding G.O.Ms. No.183 MA dated 24.03.2000, it is submitted that under Section 102(e) of the Tenancy Act, once land is notified in the Official Gazette as falling under urban or non-agricultural development, the Tenancy Act ceases to apply. Since the G.O. notified the land as a residential zone, it no longer qualifies as agricultural land. Therefore, it is submitted that the RDO's orders granting 38-E and 38-A certificates, based on the void report dated 27.07.1981, are without jurisdiction and cannot bind the purchasers of Diamond Hills Welfare Association. The alleged protected tenants, having acquiesced to the sale and failed to challenge final orders under the Ceiling Act, are estopped from raising fresh claims. It is prayed that the rights of the purchasers be upheld and the claims of the alleged protected tenants be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decisions:
50 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Chanumolu Nirmala vs. Chanumolu Indira Devi 51; V.Charati vs. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar 52; Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another 53; A.Narasimha vs. A.Krishna 54; Ithagnai Lachaiah vs. Joint Collector 55; Vorla Ramachandra Reddy vs. Joint Collector 56.
26. Mr.E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 10(5) of the CoAH Act clarifies that the surrender of land in possession of a protected tenant is not automatic, especially when such possession amounts to an encumbrance. It is further submitted that in view of Section 102(e) of the Tenancy Act, the provisions of the Tenancy Act cease to apply to lands notified for urban, non- agricultural or industrial purposes. It is submitted that under Section 12(2) of the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 24.03.2000 and in terms of said G.O., lands situated in Gachibowli Village were reclassified from "Conservation and Recreational/Tourism Use Zone" to "Residential Use Zone", thereby altering the character of the lands and extinguishing tenancy rights. It is also submitted that as per Section 38E of the Tenancy Act, the petitioners were not in actual possession of the subject lands as on 01.01.1973, and hence could not claim the status of Protected Tenants under Section 38(7) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioners had not been granted ownership 51 1994 (1) APLJ 394 (Para 12) 52 (1999) 1 SCC 273 (Para 9) 53 (2005) 7 SCC 190 54 2005 SCC Online AP 444 (Paras 18, 20, 23, 24) 55 2015 SCC Online Hyd 98 (Paras 30,32,34) 56 2021 SCC Online TS 703 (Paras 24,25,28,29,30,31) 51 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch certificates under Section 38E prior to the reclassification of the lands, thereby disentitling them from seeking ownership rights thereafter. It is contended that under Section 3(i)(iv) read with Section 3(t) of the CoAH Act, a person deemed to be a tenant under any Tenancy law is also governed by the CoAH Act, and that the Act extinguishes the rights, title, and interest of such tenants in the same manner as it does in the case of landholders. Consequently, in view of Section 13 of the CoAH Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to exercise powers under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act stands ousted. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if the land continues to be used for agricultural purposes, the notification operates as a legal bar, thereby overriding the applicability of the Tenancy Act, extinguishing all rights and obligations under it, along with the jurisdiction of authorities constituted thereunder. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Roshan Ali Khan & others vs. Raja Kishendas & others 57 and Gandaiah (died) per L.Rs and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Authorised Officer (LR), Mahbubnagar 58.
27. Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the Division Bench, in its order dated 25.02.2013 categorically held that the surplus land of Ac. 137.17 gts in Sy.Nos. 35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47, 57 1963 SCC Online AP 217 (Paras 4 to 6) 58 2001 (2) ALT 604 52 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and 53 had irrevocably vested in the State under Section 11 of the CoAH Act, and any transactions by the alleged protected tenants or landholders are void ab initio. The ceiling proceedings attained finality with dismissal of C.R.P (SR) No.24698 of 1976 on 28.04.1976 and could not be reopened in collateral proceedings. Orders subsequently passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and confirmed in appeal were held to be without jurisdiction and nullity. It is contended that the Division Bench in Paras 72 and 73 treated the Petitioners' application as one under Section 38-B, requiring landlord relinquishment in favour of protected tenants. The evidence relied upon was contradictory and inadequately addressed by the RDO, who proceeded to grant 38-A certificates without proper scrutiny. A new application under Section 37-A was filed, despite unclear claims. It is pointed out that purchasers in W.P. No. 11157 of 2019 acquired lands in the year 2003, after issuance of 38-A certificates, and in CRP No. 6708 of 2003, the Division Bench at Para 90 held that such orders do not affect rights of earlier purchasers. The learned Senior Counsel alleged that there is tampering of revenue records, as noted in Para 78 of the Division Bench's order, with the report dated 27.07.1981 of the RDO being based on suspicious and manipulated entries. Even assuming that 37-A proceedings were in favour of the Petitioners, they would fail due to non-fulfilment of the family holding requirement. It is further argued that only four protected tenants 53 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch were originally recorded; later claims by others were unexplained. It is asserted that the land admeasuring Ac.194.00 gts originally belonged to Lingamma and was validly transferred to Kastopa Corporation. The RDO's report dated 27.07.1981 and the orders dated 31.05.1975 recorded valid surrenders under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act during 1964-66, covering the entire land. Relying on Bandi Krishnamurthy vs. Pasupuleti Venkatesam 59 he argued that lawful possession on the date of commencement of Amendment Act, 1955 is a precondition for relief under Section 37-A, which was not fulfilled by the Petitioners, as shown in Sesala Pahani. Section 37-A applications made in 2013 based on a 1958 register fail due to non-compliance with family holding criteria, as demonstrated through Notification No.53 dated 02.08.1954. It is also submitted that mere references to Section 37-A in sale deeds do not confer tenancy rights on the Petitioners, especially when the plot purchasers did not execute the sale deeds and cannot be bound by such recitals. The RDO's order dated 15.10.2013, passed contrary to the Division Bench's directives to consider original records afresh, is vitiated, as it relied solely on the report dated 27.07.1981 and arbitrarily expanded land extent. The petitioners in CRP Nos.1588 and 2437 of 2017 have no subsisting rights, their names do not appear in the 1958 tenancy record, and they did not challenge the Tribunal orders. Public 59 1961 (1) AndhWR 413 54 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch records, including compromise decrees in A.S. No. 25 of 1958 and recorded surrenders before the Tahsildar and RDO, confirm relinquishment of rights by Petitioners and other claimants. The Petitioners' reliance on Section 38-D is misplaced as the protections therein apply only to involuntary or fraudulent surrenders, which is not the case here. The petitioners voluntarily executed sale deeds and ratified transactions. Thus he urged that the present Civil Revision Petitions are without merit and prayed to dismiss the same.
28. Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the land ceiling declaration filed by M/s Kastopa Corporation was duly computed under Section 8 of the CoAH Act, 1973, and the surplus land was taken into possession by the State on 13.10.1976. The revision petitioners neither challenged the computation nor the surrender proceedings under Section 13(5), making both binding upon them. He contended that although both the Tenancy Act and the CoAH Act have non-obstante clauses, they operate in different fields and neither of them overrides the other. As the CoAH Act being a later enactment, it must be presumed that the Legislature considered prior laws and hence, surrender and computation orders under the CoAH Act prevail, especially when unchallenged. The petitioners are estopped from questioning them and the principle of waiver also applies. He relied on B.L. Sreedhar vs. K.M. Munireddy 55 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and others 60, to assert that estoppel can apply to the relinquishment of rights in immovable property. He further submitted that statutory and official orders enjoy the presumption of regularity under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act and cannot be casually reopened. The Appellate Authority found that Kastopa Corporation surrendered Ac.137.17 gts in Sy.Nos.35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 towards its surplus holding, and the LRT accepted this surrender on 06.10.1976. Possession was taken through panchanama on 13.10.1976, and compensation notices were published in the year 1989. The petitioners never claimed compensation, which shows that they had no rights. Thus the lands in Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53 were not part of the surrendered area, and the petitioners cannot now invoke Section 13(5) to reopen concluded proceedings. Regarding the effect of grant of ownership certificates, he submitted that while Section 38E certificate is a statutory grant by the State, Section 38A or 38(6) certificate results from a mutual agreement between the landholder and protected tenant. Both confer full ownership, but this issue is academic and does not advance the petitioners' case. He submitted that the petitioners themselves, along with Kastopa Corporation, executed joint sale deeds between 1985 and 1987 and the Tenancy Act does not bar such joint conveyances. A joint sale by a landholder and tenant, reflecting their respective 40% and 60% interests, is 60 (2003) 2 SCC 355 = AIR 2003 SC 578 56 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch legally valid and binding. The present challenge by petitioners is a dishonest attempt to invalidate these transactions and defraud bona fide purchasers, which must be rejected on equitable grounds. It is also argued that the Tenancy Act does not permit the issuance of joint ownership certificates under Sections 38E or 38A, as entitlement is based on individual family holdings. Both provisions aim to confer full ownership by eliminating the landholder's title, but only to individual claimants. Hence, joint certificates are statutorily impermissible. The petitioners' alleged protected tenancy rights were validly surrendered, and such surrenders were never appealed or revised. The surrender of surplus land under the Ceiling Act is unrelated to tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act. Once the Ceiling Act came into force in 1973, tenancy rights became subject to the declarant's retainable land, and any protected tenant could become a Government tenant in respect of surplus lands vested in the State. Finally, he reiterated that the statutory scheme of the Tenancy Act, including the 1973 amendment introducing Section 38E, and the original provision of Section 38A, does not permit grant of joint ownership certificates. Thus, the claim of the petitioners is legally unsustainable and prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions:
57 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Ayodhya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 61; Ramji Sharma vs State of Bihar & others 62; Rafique Bibi vs. Sayed Waliuddin & others 63; Harpal Singh vs. Ashok Kumar and others 64 and Sushma Kapoor vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another 65.
29. Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.76 in C.R.P.No.5279/2016 submitted that under Section 102 of the Tenancy Act, 1950, the subject lands have been notified and reserved under the provisions of the Urban Areas Act, 1975, vide G.O.Ms.No.411 MA dated 27.09.1975 and subsequent G.O.Ms.Nos.353, 85 and 183. Consequently, the revision petitioners have no right to maintain an application for issuance of tenancy certificates under Sections 38, 38-A or 38-E of the Tenancy Act, warranting dismissal of these revisions. He argued that the core issue is whether the Tenancy Act, 1950 ceased to apply to the lands of Gachibowli village w.e.f. 27-09-1975 by virtue of Section 102(e) of the Tenancy Act, since these lands have been earmarked for urban area development under G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 27-09-1975 and subsequent notifications. He contended that the Tenancy Act no longer applies to these lands and the revision petitioners cannot invoke its provisions to claim any tenancy rights. He further argued 61 1996 SCC OnLine AP 306 (Paras 8 and 9) 62 (1996) 10 SCC 671 (Para 2, 4 and 5) 63 2004(1) SCC 287 (Para 7) 64 (2018) 11 SCC 113 (Paras 4, 5, 8 and 9) 65 (2021) SCC Online Del 5170 (Paras 7, 8 and 9) 58 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch that the revision petitioners themselves declared in the GPA dated 30.01.1981 that they had purchased the lands under an unregistered sale deed, thus changing their status from PTs to purchasers. As such, having claimed a superior status as purchasers, they cannot revert to an inferior status as PTs to claim tenancy rights Further, he contended that the revision petitioners forfeited any tenancy rights by refusing to exercise the right of purchase under Section 38-D and consenting to sale in favour of third-party plot owners. This amounts to full compliance with Section 38-D, thereby extinguishing any claim for ownership under Sections 38 or 38-A. It was also submitted that the original landholders and the so-called PTs lost their status to invoke any provisions of the Tenancy Act under Sections 38, 38-A, 38-B, or 38-E. Once the land was sold and conveyed under registered sale deeds, neither the landholders nor the PTs could legally give consent or claim tenancy rights under these sections, particularly as the PTs' status was extinguished by their own declarations and conduct. Regarding the genuineness of the certificates in Annexure-3 dated 25.05.1958 and 28.05.1958 and the provisional tenancy list of 1958, he pointed out that these were manipulated documents without any supporting record, as found in the report of the RDO dated 27.07.1981 and orders of the Joint Collector. No original tenancy records or 37-A certificates exist, and repeated attempts by authorities to produce them failed. He further argued that the 59 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch revision petitioners themselves admitted before the Land Reforms Tribunal in compromise petitions that they were never in possession of the lands and did not press their claim under Section 38-E, which has attained finality. The revision petitioners also did not seek restoration of possession within one month as required under Rule 10(2) and (3) of the 1956 Rules, leading to forfeiture of any tenancy rights. The learned counsel also submitted that 588 plot holders have been in possession for over three decades, having changed the nature of the land from agricultural to urban, with substantial investments made. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao vs Nallolla Pantaiah and others 66 and argued that PTs cannot reclaim tenancy rights after a long period. Regarding the effect of permissions under Sections 47 and 48, he argued that the Tahsildar would not have granted alienation permission if PT rights still existed, further confirming the extinguishment of PT status. He also emphasized that the findings of authorities that succession under Section 40 is void are binding and preclude any claims by alleged descendants of PTs. In conclusion, he submitted that the revision petitioners, in collusion with the landholders, have initiated these proceedings merely to reclaim lands fraudulently after executing sale deeds in favour of plot holders. The character of the land has irretrievably changed to urban plots, and 66 (1998) 9 SCC 183 60 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch third-party rights have been created. As such, the revisions are devoid of merit and should be dismissed, confirming the order of the Joint Collector, since no jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity has been established by the revision petitioners. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
Syed Sharfuddin vs. Andrews 67; R.S. Madanappa vs. Chandramma & Others 68; Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalapatram Ichharam 69; Chamanlal R. Patel vs. State of A.P. by Dist. Collector, Chittoor 70; Bai Dosabai & others vs. Mathurdas Govinddas & others 71; Gram Panchayat & others vs State of Andhra Pradesh 72; Sada vs. Tahsildar, Utnoor (supra); Samala Venkaiah & Others vs. Bakka Nagaiah & others 73; P.V. Satyanarayana Raju vs. Kanumuri Janakirama Raju & others 74; Vijayabai & others vs. Shriram Tukaram & Others75; State of A.P vs Nallamilli Rami Reddy & others 76; Shiva Kumar Sharma vs. Santosh Kumari 77; Gangula Narsimha & others vs. Govt. of A.P 78; Boddam Narsimha vs. Hasan Ali Khan (dead by LR) Others. 79; State of A.P. vs. T. Yadagiri Reddy & Others.80;
Bank of India vs. K. Mohandas & Others. 81; Pushpa Patel Chavda vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri Mandal, RR Dist & others 82; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & others 83; Maddagunta Muthamma and others vs. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad and others 84; B. Laxmi and 67 1964 AWR 1 171 68 MANU/SC/0356/1965 69 (1974) 1 SCC 242 70 1976 SCC Online AP 112 71 MANU/SC/0344/1980 72 MANU/AP/0140/1982 73 1988 (1) ALT 703 74 1995 SCC Online AP 390 75 MANU/SC/0729/1998 76 (2001) 7 SCC 708 77 (2007) 8 SCC 600 78 Judgment dated 31.12.2007 passed in W.P No. 23076 of 2003 79 MANU/SC/7050/2007 80 MANU/SC/8338/2008 81 MANU/SC/0491/2009 82 2010 (6) ALT 693 83 (2013) 4 SCC 465 84 MANU/AP/1120/2016.
61 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch others. vs. Govt. of A.P. and others 85 and K. Ratnam and others vs. D.Papaiah (died) per LRs and others 86.
30. Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plot owners submitted that this Court while adjudicating the present batch of Civil Revision Petitions, may be pleased to consider the fundamental issue that the lands in question, admeasuring Ac.36-25 guntas, are part of an approved layout consisting of existing plots and have long ceased to be agricultural lands. Consequently, the provisions of Tenancy Act, 1950, are not applicable to these plots. It is further submitted that various Government orders, revenue records, and statutory orders, clearly establish that there are no subsisting agricultural tenancy rights in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53(part) situated at Gachibowli Village. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have failed to produce any Form-B certificate issued by the Tahsildar, which is a mandatory statutory requirement to establish valid protected tenancy claim under Section 37-A of Tenancy Act. Moreover, there is no credible evidence whatsoever to show that the petitioners or their ancestors were ever in possession of the subject lands as protected tenants. On the contrary, the statutory orders and findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, which held a detailed statutory enquiry under Section 87 and exercised the powers 85 MANU/TL/1899/2023 86 Judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed in C.R.P No. 369 of 2012 by this Court.
62 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch conferred under Section 89(2) of the Tenancy Act, clearly demonstrate that there were no protected tenancy claims subsisting in these survey numbers. The statutory order dated 31-05-1975 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal has attained finality, as it was never challenged by the petitioners or their predecessors. This order, which was passed under Section 38-E(5) after an enquiry into the genuineness of the alleged tenancy rights and the purported surrender of tenancy, categorically negates the existence of any protected tenancy claims over the lands in question. It is also submitted that M/s. Kastopa Corporation, which was the original declarant in the proceedings under the CoAH Act, 1973, filed a declaration under Section 8(1) of the said Act on 09-04-1975. Significantly, in this declaration, no mention was made of any tenancy claims by any alleged tenants, further underscoring the falsity of the claims now put forth by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the Additional Divisional Revenue Officer, in his order dated 09-12-1975, determined the holding of M/s.Kastopa Corporation to be 3.6832 standard holdings and declared 2.2862 standard holdings as excess, which was confirmed in appeal in L.R.A. No.10/1976 and finally by this Court on 08-04-1976. The learned counsel points out that at no stage during these proceedings neither before the original authority nor in the appellate proceedings, did M/s. Kastopa Corporation or the alleged tenants raise any claim 63 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act. Consequently, the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, as well as the orders of this Court, have attained finality under Sections 11 and 28 of the CoAH Act, which have overriding effect over all other laws. In view of these final orders, there is no legal or factual basis for the petitioners to claim any protected tenancy rights or seek issuance of Section 38-E certificates in respect of the existing plots in the layout. The learned counsel further submits that the present claim of protected tenancy in the guise of seeking Section 38-E certificates is nothing but a continuation of a fraudulent attempt to interfere with the rights of lawful plot owners. The learned counsel submits that the existing plots in the layout have been in continuous, exclusive, and lawful possession of the plot owners for more than four decades, as evidenced by the registered sale deeds executed by M/s.Kastopa Corporation as vendor No.1 and the alleged tenants as vendor No.2. The rights, title, and possession of these plot owners have been established beyond doubt by the documentary record placed before this Court, including the Government orders regularizing the layout and the various communications from the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (now HMDA). It is also submitted that the elaborate reasoning and factual findings recorded in the orders of Hon'ble Division Bench in C.R.P. Nos.6708 and 1200 of 2003, dated 25-02-2013, have also attained finality, as the Special Leave Petitions 64 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch filed against the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These findings, which include categorical observations regarding the absence of any tenancy claim and the fraudulent nature of the petitioners' assertions, are binding on the petitioners in the present batch of Civil Revision Petitions. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the entire batch of Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and constitutes an abuse of process of law and ultimately prayed to dismiss the present batch of Civil Revision Petitions, upholding the lawful rights of the plot owners and putting an end to the vexatious and fraudulent litigation. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
Bandi Krishnamurthy vs. Pasupuleti Venkatesam 87; Nallari Rangai Seshagiri Rao vs. Mallani Achaiah 88; T.R.Thandur vs. Union of India and others 89; Tumati Rangayya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 90; Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu and others 91; Poonam Bai and others vs. A. Jameer Bhikku 92; Byram Pestonji Gariwala vs. Union of India and others 93; Nalla Yakoob S/o. Bala Gattaiah vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh; Revenue (UC.II) Department rep. by its Secretary Secretariat and others 94; S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath 95; Gowrishankar and another vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust and others 96; S. 87 1961 AWR 413 88 CRP No.2034 of 1963 dated 22.06.1996 89 (1996) 3 SCC 690 90 AIR 1978 AP 106 91 (1979) 2 SCC 34 92 1987 SCC Online AP 343 93 AIR 1991 SC 2234 94 1992 SCC Online AP 102 95 AIR 1994 SC 853 96 AIR 1996 SC 2202
65 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Rangaiah and others vs. Collector, Medak and others 97 MD. Noorul Hoda vs. Bibi Raifunnisa and others 98; P.S. Rao vs. Special officer and Competent Authority 99; Pulli Ramaiah and another vs. Potta Nagabhushanam and others. 100; Salkia Businessmen's Association and Others vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others 101; K.R.Krishnaveni vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad and others 102; The State of A.P and others vs. N. Audikesava Reddy and others 103; Renu Devi vs. Mahendra Singh and others 104; Ashwani Kumar Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others 105; Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty 106; Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra 107; Shajadi Begum (died) by LRs and others vs. Joint Collector, Medak, Sangareddy and others 108; Boddam Narsimha vs. Hasan Ali Khan(dead) by LRs and Others.109; T.Lakshmipathi and others vs. P.Nithyananda Reddy and others 110; Lakshmi Bai vs. Pedda Lakshman (died) by LRs and Others. 111; A.V.Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others 112 ; Dharma Naika vs. Rama Naika and Anr.113; Yunus Ali (dead) through LRs and others vs. Khursheed Akram 114; P.J.Chacko and Another vs. Chairman, Life Insurance and Corporation of India and others. 115; Delhi Development Authority, N.D. and Anr vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Others 116; Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs. State of Haryana 117; Abdul Rahim and others vs. Sk. Abdul Zabar and others 118; Thota Ganga Laxmi and another vs. 97 1996 (3) ALD 351 (DB) 98 (1996) 7 SCC 767 99 1998 (4) ALD 697 100 2001 (1) ALD 525(DB) 101 AIR 2001 SC 2790 102 (2001) 10 SCC 665 103 (2002) 1 SCC 227 104 AIR 2003 SC 1608 105 (2003) 11 SCC 584 106 (2003) 7 SCC 197 107 AIR 2005 SC 3330 (1) 108 2007(2) ALD 735 109 AIR 2007 SC 1145 110 AIR 2007 SC 2427 111 2007(1)ALD 614 112 (2007) 4 SCC 221 113 AIR 2008 SC 1276 114 (2008) 7 SCC 293 115 AIR 2008 SC 424 116 AIR 2008 SC 1343 117 (2009) 7 SCC 363 118 (2009) 6 SCC 160 66 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 119; Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and others 120; Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi 121; Jagpal Sing vs. State of Punjab122; Ekta Apartments CHS Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai 123; State of A.P. vs. D. Raghukul Pershad 124; Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and others; Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P and others125; Rashtra Dalita Seva Sangham, Hyderabad vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad and others 126; Mohinder Singh (dead) through LRs and others vs. Narain Singh and others127; Gaddam Ramulu vs. Joint Collector and others 128; Umadevi Nambiar vs. Thmarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese129; Panduranga Vethal Kevne vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another 130; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratap Singh Maharaj Bhonsle and another 131; S. Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah and others 132; HMT Ltd. vs. Rukmini 133.
31. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Harender Pershad, reiterating his submissions has submitted that Section 37A was inserted in the Tenancy Act, in the year 1955 including all the tenants in possession as deemed Protected Tenants. If the total area of the land owned by the landowner including the land under the cultivation of tenant is more than family holding and admittedly, the names of the tenants and their forefathers were incorporated in the 119 (2010) 15 SCC 207 120 (2010) 8 SCC 383 121 (2011) 8 SCC 249 (Paras 43, 50, 51) 122 (2011) 11 SCC 396 123 (2012) 4 SCC 689 124 (2012) 8 SCC 584 125 AIR 2016 Supreme Court 4995 126 2004 SCC Online AP 288 127 Civil Appeal No.3828 of 2017 dated 14.03.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court 128 2019 (2) ALT(SC) 142 129 (2022) 7 SCC 90 (Paras 12 & 13) 130 Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 56230/2024 131 Civil Appeal No.14807/2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court 132 2024 SCC Online SC 1764 133 2024 SCC Online SC 2614 67 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Tenancy Register prepared under Section 37A in the year 1958 and the alleged surrender or compromise does not abridge the right or privileges of any tenant under any usage or law or arising out of any contract, grant decree or order of the Court. Therefore, the alleged surrender contrary to provisions of Section 19 does not bind the tenants and the sale deeds execution in violation of Section 38D of the Tenancy Act have no legal sanctity and non-est in law. It is further submitted that Kastopa Corporation, who is the vendor of the respondents in categorical terms admitted that there are Protected Tenants over the lands in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village and there was no surrender of these lands before any of the authorities and admitted facts need not be proved as per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, more particularly, when the findings of facts, recorded by this Court in Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are binding and no person can dispute the record of the Court and the presumption has to be drawn that entries made in the orders of the Court reflect the true nature of records, in the absence of questioning the same. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when the tenants have disputed that they have not executed the sale deeds in favour of the respondents herein, the Joint Collector committed error in deciding the validity of the said sale deeds and it is only the competent Civil Court after examination of the evidence, can declare 68 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the validity or otherwise of the sale transactions and prayed to allow the Revisions Petitions, confirming the orders of the RDO. RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
32. Before considering the above submissions, it is apt to refer the object of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, formerly known as the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. This Act was enunciated to regulate the relationship between the landlords and tenants, deal with the rights in or over the lands, land tenures, collection of rents, transfer and alienation of agricultural land. The State legislature with a laudable object as part of agrarian reforms enacted the Tenancy Act, providing various provisions for transfer, alienation of agricultural land and for other allied purposes. Before discussing elaborately with regard to inter se disputes of the parties, the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act, are extracted hereunder:
"Section 19 - Termination of tenancy (1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or order of a Court of law, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) no tenancy of land shall be terminated before the expiration of the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leased otherwise than
(a) by the tenant by surrender of his rights to the landholder atleast a month before the commencement of the year:
Provided that such surrender is made by the tenant in writing and is admitted by him before and is made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar; or Provided further that where the land is cultivated jointly by joint tenants or members of an undivided Hindu family, unless the surrender is made
69 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch by all of them, it shall be ineffective in respect of such joint tenants as have not joined in the application for surrender, irrespective of the fact that the names of all the joint tenants are not mentioned in the certificate;
(b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section (2). (2) The landholder may terminate a tenancy on the ground that the tenant
(a) (i) has failed to pay in any year, within fifteen days from the day fixed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F. for the payment of the last instalment of 1land revenue due for the land concerned in that year, the rent of such land for that year; or
(ii) if an application for the determination of reasonable rent is pending before the Tribunal or the Collector under Section 17, has failed to deposit within 15 days from the aforesaid date with the Tribunal or the Collector, as the case may be, a sum equal to the amount of rent which he would have been liable to pay for that year if no such application had been made; or
(iii) in case the reasonable rent determined under Section 17 is higher than the sum deposited by him, has failed to pay the balance due from him within two months from the date of the decision of the Tribunal or the Collector, as the case may be; or
(b) has done any act which is destructive or permanently injurious to the land; or
(c) has sub-divided the land; or
(d) has sublet the land or failed to cultivate the land personally, or has assigned any interest therein; or
(e) has used such land for a purpose other than agriculture; Provided that no tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in this sub-section unless the landholder gives six months, notice in writing intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination: and Provided further that the tenancy of a tenant who
(a) is a female or a minor; or
(b) is subject to physical or mental disability; or
(c) is serving in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of India, shall not be determined on the ground only that the land comprised in the tenancy has been sublet by or on behalf of such tenant.
(3) The tenancy of a tenant holding a lease to which Section 3(7) or 8 applies shall terminate
(a) (xxx)
(b) where the landholder is a person who, having served in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of India, in good faith requires the land for personal cultivation on the termination of such service, on the expiration of the year 70 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch in which such person gives notice in writing to the tenant that the tenancy is terminated; or
(b) on the first day of March, 1951 in a case in which a person deemed under Section 34 to be a protected tenant is entitled under Section 36 to recover possession of the land on that day.
Section 30 - Sub-division, subletting and assignment prohibited (1) No sub-division or subletting of any land by a tenant and no assignment of any interest held by a tenant shall be valid. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) it shall be lawful for a tenant to be a member of a Co-operative Farming Society, and as such member to sublet, assign, mortgage or create a charge on his interest in the land in favour of such society.
Section 32 - Procedure of taking possession (1) A tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of this Act may apply to the Tahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for such possession.
(2) No landholder shall obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar, for which he shall apply in the prescribed form.
(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the Tahsildar shall, after holding an enquiry pass such order thereon as he deems fit.
(4) Any person taking possession of any land or dwelling house otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall, without prejudice to his liability to the penalty provided in Section 96, be liable to forfeiture of the crops, if any, grown on the land to the payment of such costs as may be awarded by the Tahsildar or by the Collector on appeal from the Tahsildar. Section 33 - Act not to affect rights or privileges of tenant under any other law Save as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 30, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to limit or abridge the right or privileges of any tenant under any usage or law for the time being in force or arising out of any contract, grant, decree or order of a Court or otherwise howsoever. Section 37 - Persons not entitled under Section 34 deemed in certain circumstances to be protected tenants (1) Every person who at the commencement of this Act holds as tenant any land in respect of which no person is deemed to be a protected tenant under Section 34, shall, on the expiration of one year from such commencement or, the final rejection of all claims by any other person to 71 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch be deemed under Section 34 to be a protected tenant in respect of such land, whichever is later, be deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of such land unless the landholder has before such expiration or final rejection as aforesaid made an application in the prescribed form to the Tahsildar for a declaration that such person is not a protected tenant:
Provided that where the landholder is a minor or a person serving in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of India, he shall make the application for declaration before the expiry of one year from the date on which the minor attains majority, of the landholder ceases to serve in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of India:
Provided further that where the landholder is a person permanently incapable of cultivating the land by reason of mental disability, the person who succeeds to the land on the death of the said landholder shall make the application within one year from the date on which he succeeds to the land.
Explanation: Where the land is held under more than one joint landholders the last two provisions shall not apply unless such landholders are subject to a disability specified in the said provisos.
(2) If after enquiring in the prescribed manner into such application, the Tahsildar refuses to make such declaration and his decision is not set aside by the Collector on first appeal or by the Board of Revenue on second appeal, the tenant shall be deemed to be a protected tenant.
(3) The rights as a protected tenant of a person deemed under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) to be a protected tenant shall be recorded in the Record of Rights or, where there is no Record of Rights, in such village record as may be prescribed.
Section 37A-Persons holding lands as tenants at the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 to be deemed to be protected tenants Persons holding lands as tenants at the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 to be deemed to be protected tenants (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who at the commencement of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 holds as tenant any land in respect of which he is not deemed to be a protected tenant under this Act, shall be deemed to be a protected tenant if the total area of the land owned by the landholder including the land under the cultivation of his tenants is more than three times the area of a family holding for the local area concerned:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of any other person who already holds a protected tenancy certificate in respect of such land or whose rights as protected tenant are under investigation before a competent authority, if such other person applies to the Tribunal for safeguarding his rights within a period of six months from the
72 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955.
(2) The rights as a protected tenant of a person deemed under sub-section (1) to be a protected tenant shall be recorded in the Record of Rights or, where there is no Record of Rights, in such village record as may be prescribed.
Section 38A - Procedure when reasonable price is agreed to between the landholder and protected tenant Procedure when reasonable price is agreed to between the landholder and protected tenant If in respect of a land held by a protected tenant the land-holder consents to sell his interest in the land to the protected tenant and the reasonable price payable therefor by the protected tenant is agreed to between them, the provisions of sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 38 shall not apply to such sale, and either the landholder or the protected tenant or both jointly, may apply to the Tribunal and thereupon all the provisions of sub-secs. (5), (6) and (8) of that section shall apply mutatis mutandis to such application:
Provided that the reasonable price so agreed to by the parties themselves shall be deemed to be the reasonable price determined by the Tribunal for the purposes of the said sub-sections (5), (6) and (8):
Provided further that if the landholder does not sell the whole of the land held by him but retains some land with him, the extent of the land remaining with him after the purchase of the land by the protected tenant, whether to cultivate it personally or otherwise, shall not be less than the area of a basic holding for the local area concerned:
Provided also that the right of the protected tenant shall be limited to the extent of three family holdings in the local area concerned including the land, if any, owned by the protected tenant.
Section 38B - Procedure when landholder agrees to relinquish his rights in favour of the protected tenant.
If in respect of a land held by a protected tenant, the land-holder concerned intends to relinquish his interest in the land without receiving any consideration therefor, the provisions of sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 38 shall not apply to such a case and the landholder may apply to the Tribunal and thereupon the Tribunal shall issue to such protected tenant a certificate so far as may be as provided for in sub-sec. (6) of Section 38.
Provided that the right of the protected tenant and the grant of the certificate shall be limited to the extent of the three family holdings in the local area concerned including the land, if any, owned by the protected tenant and that any excess over such extent shall vest in the Government free of all right of the said protected tenant:
Provided further that if the landholder does not relinquish the whole of the land held by him but retains some land with him, the extent of the
73 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch land remaining with him after the relinquishment, whether to cultivate it personally or otherwise, shall not be less than the area of a basic holding for the local area concerned.
Section 38D - Procedure when landholder intends to sell land to a protected tenant (1) If the landholder at any time intends to sell the land held, by the protected tenant, he shall give a notice in writing of his intention to such protected tenant and offer to sell the land to him. In case the protected tenant intends to purchase the land he shall intimate in writing his readiness to do so within 2six months, from the date of the receipt of such notice. If there is any dispute about the reasonable price payable by the protected tenant for the land, the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 38 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
(2) If the protected tenant does not exercise the right of purchase in response to the notice given to him by the landholder under sub-section (1) such protected tenant shall forfeit his right of purchase of the same and the landholder shall be entitled to sell such land to any other person. On such a purchase by any other person; the protected tenant shall forfeit all his rights in the land save those provided for in Section 41. Section 38E - Ownership of lands held by protected tenants to stand transferred to them from a notified date Ownership of lands held by protected tenants to stand transferred to them from a notified date (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter or any law for the time being in force or any custom, usage, judgment, decree, contract or grant to the contrary, the Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, declare in respect of any area and from such date as may be specified therein, that ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their landholders in such area under any provision of this Chapter shall, subject to the condition laid down in sub-section (7) of Section 38, stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands:
Provided that where in respect of any such land, any proceeding under Sec. 19 or Section 32 or Section 44 is pending on the date so notified, the transfer of ownership of such land shall take effect on the date, on which such proceeding is finally decided, and when the tenant retains possession of the land in accordance with the decision in such proceeding.
Explanation: If a protected tenant, on account of his being dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date of the notification issued hereunder, then for the purposes of the sub-section, such protected tenant shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal or other authority, be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of
74 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the notification; and accordingly, the Tahsildar shall notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suo-motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry, and direct that such land in possession of the landholder or any person claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from the possession of the landholder or such person, as the case may be, and shall be restored to the protected tenant and the provisions of this section shall apply thereto in every respect as if the protected tenant had held the land on the date of such notification.
(2) A certificate in the prescribed form declaring him to be owner shall be issued by the Tribunal after holding such enquiry as may be prescribed, to every such protected tenant and notice of such issue shall simultaneously be issued to the landholder. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of the certificate as against the landholder and all other persons having any interest therein:
Provided that where the land, the ownership of which has been transferred to the protected tenant under sub-section (1), is in the occupation of a person other than the protected tenant or holder of the certificate issued under this sub-section, it shall be lawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said land to the protected tenant or holder of the certificate, after giving notice of eviction to the occupant thereof, in the prescribed manner";
(3) Within ninety days from the date of notice of issue of the certificate under sub-section (2), every landholder of lands situated in the area specified in the notification under sub-section (1), shall file an application before the Tribunal for the determination of the reasonable price of his interest in the land which has been transferred to the ownership of a protected tenant under sub-section (1), and if an application is not so filed within such period by the landholder, the Tribunal may suo motu proceed to determine such price and thereupon all the provisions of sub-secs. (4) to (8) of Section 38 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such application;
Provided that if the protected tenant commits default in respect of any instalment, it shall be recovered by the Government as arrears of land revenue and paid to the landholder:
Provided further that if the whole or any part of the price due to the landholder cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, the transfer shall not be effective and the amount, if any, already paid by the protected tenant towards the price shall be refunded to him together with interest at three per cent per annum and the land revenue paid by him, if any, after deducting therefrom the rent for the period.
(4) The Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this section by rules, make such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as they may deem necessary, such as the procedure for making inquiry to ascertain the extent of the holding of the tenant as on the notified date and the extent of the land which is to be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the protected tenants".
75 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or Section 19, the Collector may, suo motu at any time, hold an enquiry with a view to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of the right made by the protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, for the purpose of affecting the transfer of ownership under this section, and pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit:
Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under the sub-section unless such person has had an opportunity or making his representation thereto".
Section 89 - Procedure and powers at inquiries (1) The provisions of Sections 149 and 150 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F shall apply to the recording of evidence and of decisions at inquiries held under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of any such inquiry the Tahsildar, Tribunal and Collector may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on Civil Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 including the power to award costs Section 91 - Revisions Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any final order passed on appeal by the Collector or Board of Revenue on the following grounds:
(a) that the original or appellate authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) that the original or appellate authority failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity.
Section 92 - Powers exercisable on appeal or revision An authority exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction under this Act shall pass such order consistent with this Act, whether by way of confirmation, recession or modification of the order under appeal or revision, as appears to it to be just, and shall have the powers conferred on the original authority by sub-section (2) of Section 89. Section 102 - Act not to apply to certain lands and areas Nothing in this Act shall apply--
(a) to lands leased, granted, alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or the State Government a local authority or a Co- operative Society:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to Inams, lands dealt with under Chapter VI and to such other lands as may be prescribed;
76 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
(b) to lands held on lease with the permission of the Collector for the benefit of an industrial and commercial undertaking;
(c) to service Inam lands;
(d) to Inams held by religious or charitable institutions; or
(e) to any area which Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette specify as being reserved for urban, non- agricultural or industrial development.
(f) to lands held by any Corporation established by or under a Central or Provincial or State Act, or any Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act. 1956.
(g) to any agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any Charitable or Hindu Religious Institution or endowment as defined by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act Section 104 - Act to prevail over other enactments This Act and any rule, order or notification made or issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment with respect to matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such other enactment."
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 07.12.2010, allowed Civil Appeal No.3054 of 2006 and batch and remanded the matters to the Division Bench of this Court framing certain points for consideration and permitting other points to be urged as well. On remand, the Division Bench of this Court, by a common order dated 25.02.2013, disposed of CRP No. 6708 of 2003 and batch, answering certain issues. Since some issues required further examination upon verification of records, the matter was remanded to the Original Authority/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for adjudication of the lis between the parties. The purpose was to give a quietus to the litigation arising out of declarations filed under the CoAH Act, 1973 77 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch by M/s.Kastopa Corporation (vendor of the respondents), limiting the claim of the tenants to an extent of Ac.36.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53 of Gachibowli Village. The observations made thereunder were confined to the extent of rights of the tenants and the landlords, and their subsequent purchasers and validity of the surrender of the lands under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Division Bench in Paras 93 and 94 observed that the determination of Issues 1 to 4, 6, 9, and 10 framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is closely linked to the core question of whether the petitioners in C.R.P.No.6708 of 2003 are protected tenants and whether the respondents therein have any right, title, or interest in Sy.Nos.51 to 53, which they claim to have purchased. It was further observed that there are also several other issues which are mentioned (on which the competing contentions were recorded but not the conclusions), which require analysis and resolution. The contentions raised by both sides highlight the complexity involved, making it difficult for this Court to adjudicate them within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Tenancy Act.
34. This Court, after a careful examination of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and the rival contentions, proceeds to determine the issues framed as follows:
78 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
35. Issue No.a) Whether G.O.Ms.No.183 MA dt.24.3.2000 issued under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 notifying the subject lands as "residential use" zone takes away the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy Act in the light of Sec. 102(e) of the Tenancy Act?
i) Findings of the RDO:
The RDO held that the petitioners have been in possession of the subject lands as tenants since 1950 and therefore, they have acquired vested tenancy rights. These rights, being pre-existing, cannot be divested merely due to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 24.03.2000. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.
ii) Findings of the Joint Collector:
The Joint Collector opined that once the land is notified for residential use under G.O.Ms.No.183, it ceases to be agricultural land under the Tenancy Act, 1950. In such a case, Section 102(e) bars the application of the Tenancy Act, and the authorities under the Act lose jurisdiction. Hence, the RDO's conclusion was held to be incorrect and was set aside.
79 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
iii) Findings of this Court:
a) The Tenancy Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate the relationship between landowners and tenants. This Act aimed at agrarian reform, was designed to establish a socialistic pattern in society and governs the transfer, alienation, and possession of agricultural lands. It falls under Entry 18 of List II, and is well within the legislative competence of the State. Under the provisions of the Act, if a landowner seeks to regain possession of land from tenant or protected tenant, they must follow the procedure prescribed. Any question regarding whether a person is a protected tenant or the surrender of tenancy rights can only be adjudicated under the provisions of the Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of this legislation. Section 5 of the Act provides that a person lawfully cultivating the land belonging to another shall be deemed to be a tenant, unless the land is being personally cultivated by the landholder. Prior to the amendment of Section 19 (vide Amendment Act No.3 of 1954, Published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.29, dated 4.2.1954), the surrender of tenancy could be oral. After the amendment to Section 19 w.e.f. 04.02.1954, surrender must be in writing and admitted before the Tahsildar. In the absence of such surrender, the tenant continues to have right to recover the possession. Further, Section 33 of the Act clarifies that 80 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch except for exceptions curved out in Section 30(1) of the Act, nothing in the Tenancy Act, shall be construed to limit or abridge the right or privileges of any tenant under any usage or law for the time being in force or arising out of any contract, grant, decree or order of a court or otherwise howsoever. This clearly reflects the legislature's intent that tenants' accrued rights shall not be defeated by subsequent laws or enactments.
b) The facts culled out from the orders passed in W.A.No.1420 of 1987 are that the lands in Survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, and 47, admeasuring Ac.63-18 gts were recorded in the name of Smt.Lingamma as pattedar. The lands admeasuring Ac.18-23 gts in Sy.No.45, Ac.11-28 gts in Sy.No.46, Ac.17-20 gts in Sy.No.51, Ac.15- 36 gts in Sy.No.52, and Ac.18-10 gts in Sy.No.53 were recorded in the name of Ilyas Burni as per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 (Khasra Pahani is prepared under Regulation XIII under Hyderabad Land Revenue Regulations). The total extent of land holdings of Ilyas Burni was Ac.157.03 gts forming part of various survey numbers including the subject survey numbers of Gachibowli Village. After enforcement of the Tenancy Act, entries in the Tenancy Register were made in two spells i.e, 1951 and 1958, recording 13 names jointly as tenants under Sections 34 and 37A of the Act. The original pattedar Lingamma executed a registered sale deed vide document No.31 81 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch dated 22.02.1350 Fasli, in favour of Ilyas Burni. After execution of the sale deed, Lingamma instituted suit vide O.S.No.11/1 of 1952 for declaration and injunction over the lands. Pending adjudication of the said suit, Section 37A was inserted with effect from 12.03.1956 extending protection to those found in possession for claiming tenancy rights. The suit instituted by Lingamma ended in compromise in A.S.No.25 of 1958, contrary to Section 33 of the Tenancy Act which mandates that any compromise or settlement does not take away the statutory rights of protected tenants. Therefore, any compromise entered by Lingamma, who had already alienated the property in 1940, does not affect the tenancy rights of Protected Tenants since their names were continued in the Tenancy Register of the year 1958.
c) In the meanwhile, M/s. Kastopa Corporation has purchased land admeasuring Ac. 157-03 guntas in Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42 to 47, 51, 52, and 53 situated at Gachibowli Village, under registered sale deed dated 02-09-1961 bearing Document No.2500 of 1961 from the legal heirs of Late Ilyas Burni. Further, Kastopa Corporation also purchased land admeasuring Ac.33-14 guntas in Sy.Nos. 35, 36, and 50 under registered sale deed dated 28-09-1964 bearing Document No.498 of 1964 from the legal heirs of Late Ilyas Burni. The purchaser Kastopa Corporation filed declarations under the 82 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch provisions of CoAH Act, 1973, which came into force on 01.01.1973. The alleged surrender of tenancy rights in favour of Lingamma lacks legal sanctity since she had lost all proprietary rights in 1940 and the records do not show any written surrender in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. In the copy of Tenancy Register filed along with material papers at Pg.No.807, it was mentioned that as ordered in File No.A3/20460/64 dt.08-02-1965 the names of the Protected Tenants have been deleted over Sy.Nos.60, 61, 63, 103 to 105, 106, 109, 127 and 128. Further it was also mentioned that legal heirs of P.T i.e, G.Pochaiah, G.Yellaiah, G.Ramulu, G.Anjaiah and G.Chandramma have been accepted and deposed in their statements and agreed to surrender the rights before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Serilingampally. Accordingly, their names were deleted in P.T Register i.e, Sri G. Yellaiah recorded in P.T Register of Gachibowli Village against Sy.No.115 to an extent of Ac.1-19 gts vide Proceedings No.B/1378/99 dated 30.09.1998 of MRO, Serilingampally. The said copy of P.T Register does not disclose any written and admitted surrender. Further, the tenants themselves filed an application before the Tahsildar in File No.A4/2556/1966 (referenced in the affidavit of the District Collector in W.A.No.1420 of 1987), wherein it was clarified that the alleged surrender dated 16.10.1966 relates to Sy.Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8, 12, 23, 30, 31 to 43, 47, 50, 62, 69, 70, 72 to 75, 78, 79, 82 to 87, 93, 96 to 102, 111, 113, 118, 120, 122, 123 and 83 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 126 of Gachibowli village. Significantly, there was no reference to Survey Nos. 51, 52, and 53 of Gachibowli Village.
d) In terms of the provisions of CoAH Act, 1973, a provisional list of protected tenants was prepared under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, for which the tenants filed an Objection Petition dated 17.03.1975 before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 53 admeasuring Ac.157.03 gts situated at Gachibowli Village. Based on the Land Reforms Tribunal's proceedings, protected tenancy rights were recorded in the P.T. Register prepared under Section 37A of the Act. Due to the absence of a proper and valid surrender procedure post-1954, the alleged surrender which is not in-conformity with Section 19 does not extinguish the tenants' rights.
e) While the matter stood thus, on 20.04.1979, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.594 granting lease over a portion of the land to Maharshi Institute. Questioning the same, the tenants filed W.P.No.4590 of 1980 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.1981 directing the RDO to submit a report. Seeking implementation of the report of the RDO, W.P.No.4059 of 1981, came to be filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.07.1987 directing the respondents therein to grant certificates under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.73.03 gts 84 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and also permitted the petitioners therein to file applications under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, before the RDO. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed an appeal vide W.A. No.1420 of 1987 on the file of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.01.1993 holding that there was no valid surrender and directed the authorities to examine the tenancy claims. Thereafter, the RDO conducted an enquiry in File No.G/3640/1996 dated 28.04.2001 and ordered for issuance of Section 38A sale certificates in favour of protected tenants in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.17-20 gts in Sy.No.51, Ac.15-36 gts in Sy.No.52, Ac.4-01 gts in Sy.No.53 (paike) situated at Gachibowli Village. The orders of the Division Bench attained finality as no further appeal was filed by the State and the same is evidenced vide Memo No.23361/L.Ref.II/93-11 dated 19.10.1994. The RDO subsequently issued ownership certificates under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act in File No.C/1188/1993 dated 25.04.1995 to the extent of Ac.73.03 gts out of the total Ac.157.03 gts in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42 to
45. Questioning the issuance of Ownership Certificates, the Authorized Officer under the CoAH Act filed appeal before the Joint Collector in File No.B4/4802/1996 and the same was dismissed on 20.06.1998, confirming the tenancy rights.
85 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
f) While-so, the computation of the lands on the declaration filed by Kastopa Corporation in C.C.No.W/264/1975 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal was assailed in LRA No.89/1996 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Aggrieved by orders passed by LRAT, Kastopa Corporation has filed CRP No.3755/1997 on the file of this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.11.1998 by setting aside the order under revision and directed to re-compute the holding of the declarant in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 47, 51 to 53 (Copy of the order is enclosed as material paper in CRP No.1588 of 2017 at Pg.No.86). In pursuance of the said order, the Land Reforms Tribunal re-computed the holdings of the declarant and held that Kastopa Corporation was surplus holder to the extent of 0.62636 Standard Holding (SH) and the LRT vide order dated 26.05.1999 directed the declarant Kastopa Corporation to surrender the lands in Sy.Nos.46, 47 and 53. Challenging the same, the tenants filed LRA No.13/2000 before the LRAT under Section 20(3) of the CoAH Act and vide order dated 29.09.2000 the said appeal was allowed setting aside the order dated 26.05.1999 passed by LRT in CC No.W/264/75 and remitted the matter to the RDO for fresh disposal to consider the claims of protected tenants as per Section 13 of the CoAH Act.
86 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
g) Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in disposing the claims, the tenants filed W.P.No.14708 of 1999 and the same was disposed of directing the authorities to consider the application of tenants under Section 38A of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter, the RDO passed orders dated 28.04.2001 in File No.G/3640/1996 issuing sale certificate under Section 38A of the Tenancy Act for the lands in Sy.No.51 (Ac.17.20 gts), Sy.No.52 (Ac.15.36 gts) and Sy.No.53 (Paike) (Ac.4.01 gts) total admeasuring Ac.37.17 gts and also granted other reliefs. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal vide F2/4902/2001 was filed by the Diamond Hills Welfare Association and its members before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2001. Challenging the said order, the protected tenants filed CRP No.6708 of 2003 and the State filed CRP No.1200 of 2003. Vide common order dated CRP No.6708 of 2003 was allowed and CRP No.1200 of 2003 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Civil Appeal No.3054 of 2006 and batch were preferred on the file of Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 07.12.2010 remanded the matters back to this Court to adjudicate on certain specific issues. In terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court vide common order dated 25.02.2013 remanded the matter to the RDO to decide specific issues to the extent of disputed lands admeasuring Ac.36.25 gts in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village and in the 87 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch said order it was clarified that the remaining extent forming part of Ac.137.17 gts in Sy.Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 part of Gachibowli Village vested in the State. Thereafter, the RDO passed orders dated 15.10.2013 in Case No.G/2690/2013 recognizing the tenancy rights to the extent of Ac.42.24 gts in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 part. On appeal, the said order was reversed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide order dated 24.09.2016 in Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch. Challenging the same, the present batch of cases are filed.
h) The facts referred above would reveal that the dispute between the landlord (declarant/Kastopa Corporation) and tenants has not attained finality before issuance of the notification vide G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000 under the provisions of the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 classifying the subject lands in Gachibowli as urban area. It is settled law that unless expressly provided, statute operates prospectively. Therefore, any notification or law altering land use classification in the teeth of Section 33 of the Tenancy Act does not affect pending proceedings or extinguish tenancy rights. The rights crystallized under the law in force at the time of initiation of proceedings cannot be retrospectively nullified and further, the Tenancy Act being beneficial legislation continues to 88 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch govern all pending claims/cases despite the urban development plans.
i) The crucial issue required to be examined in this case is with regard to the nature of lands and its classification. As per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the nature of lands are recorded in the name of Ilyas Burney as patta lands. As per the Circular Instructions issued by the Government of Hyderabad, revenue notification No.53 dated 24.08.1955 published in Gazette dated 15.09.1955, all tenancies governing under the Tenancy Act, 1950 have been included in the Record of Rights. As per Section 62 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (1907 AD), the Collector is the competent authority to grant permission for appropriating agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose. As per Rule 70 of the Telangana Land Revenue Rules, 1951, no agricultural land can be diverted to any other purpose, without the permission of the Collector. The lands which are ceased to be agricultural lands are liable to be pay tax under Non-Agricultural Assessment Tax, 1963 ('NALA Act, 1963'). The NALA Act, 1963 was repealed and replaced with the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 ('NALA Act, 2006'). The respondents in the revisions i.e, Diamond Hills Welfare Association and its members nor the Kastopa Corporation have placed any material obtaining conversion 89 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch permission under the provisions of the Acts referred above and in fact, the declaration filed by Kastopa Corporation was computed under the provisions of the CoAH Act, 1973. The LRT vide order dated 9.12.1975 determined that Kastopa Corporation was a surplus holder of 2.2862 SH. Out of total extent of land admeasuring Ac.190.17 gts in Sy.Nos.35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 50 to 53 of Gachibowli Village, an extent of land admeasuring Ac.137.17 gts in Sy.Nos.35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 was surrendered by Kastopa on 05-05-1976 and possession was taken by the State on 13-10-1976 (As per the findings recorded by the Division Bench in the common order dated 25.02.2013 at Para No.65), which would amply demonstrate that the classification of the lands as on the date of taking possession are not ceased to be agriculture.
j) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corporation Limited vs. State of Telangana's case (supra) while dealing with the classification of lands under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act, 1976") and application of the notifications issued thereunder to the urban agglomeration, observed as under:
"70. The judgments relied upon by Shri Salve such as Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 362], and Biraji v. Surya Pratap, (2020) 10 SCC 729 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 30] are not helpful to the arguments raised. In fact, the lessees were aware of the controversy in respect of nature of land and its statutory cancellation, therefore, the lack of pleadings or the evidence loses its significance. The 1987 Act is a Code in itself providing for constitution of the Endowments 90 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Tribunal, appeal, revision and review. The strict rule of procedure contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of pleadings and evidence cannot be extended to the Tribunal constituted for specific purpose. Since the lessees were aware of the fact that the Mutt claims the land to be agricultural land and statutory cancellation of the lease was being averred for the reason that the leased land was agricultural, therefore, the lessees cannot complain of any violation of principles of natural justice or strict rules of pleading as is required under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
71. In fact, this Court in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, [1962 SCC OnLine SC 41] held that since parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case. It was held as under:
"5. ... No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mistrial which vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion. Neither party claimed before us that it had any further evidence to offer."
78. Similarly, the argument that the land now falls within the urban agglomeration in view of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is again not tenable. Firstly, the said Act stands repealed on 22.3.1999. Still further, the mere fact that the land has come within the municipal limits would not make the land as non-agricultural land. It only means that the land within the municipal limits can be utilized or the buildings be constructed in terms of the provisions of the Municipal Laws applicable thereto.
79. Similarly, the argument that the land in question falls with the Zonal Development Plan for Kukatpally as per the communication of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is again not tenable. The Zonal Development Plan is future planning of the development of the area. Thus, in future, the land can be used only according to Zonal Development Plan but that does not mean that the agricultural nature of the land has ceased to exist. Therefore, the said communication is also not tenable."
k) The analysis of the provisions of the UDA Act, 1975 and the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 makes it clear that mere fact that land falls within the municipal limits and subsequent change of use 91 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch does not affect the rights of the protected tenants. Further, Section 38E of the Tenancy Act starts with non-obstante clause giving overriding effect of all the provisions of the Act and vesting of the rights in favour of the Protected Tenants, from the date of notification i.e, 01.01.1973 subject to fulfilling the conditions under sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act. Admittedly, no notification was issued under Section 102 (e) of the Tenancy Act divesting the accrued rights under Sections 34 and 37A of the Tenancy Act. Further, a conjoint reading of Section 33 r/w Section 104 of the Tenancy Act, would amply establish the intention of the legislature that the rights conferred under the Act, shall be construed to limit or abridge the rights or privileges of any tenant. A summary of the above analysis would imply that G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000 is not a notification issued under Section 102(e) of Tenancy Act. It is to be seen that once rights have been created under the statute, such rights cannot be denuded without following the procedure contained under the Tenancy Act. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000 is not applicable to the subject lands on two folds. Firstly, the tenancy proceedings are pending from the year 1980 onwards before this Court vide W.P.No.4590 of 1980, W.P.No.4059 of 1982 and WA No.1420 of 1987 etc., and before the authorities under the Tenancy Act and the issuance of subsequent notification vide G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000 cannot 92 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch retrospectively nullify the rights. Secondly, the declaration filed by the Kastopa Corporation under the provisions of CoAH Act, 1973 was computed and the possession of surplus lands was taken by the State on 13.10.1976, after the UDA Act, 1975 and ULC Act, 1976 came into force. The purchasers from Kastopa Corporation (respondents in revision cases) failed to establish that there was conversion order issued by the Collector for appropriating the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose under Rule 70 of Telangana Land Revenue Rules, 1951 nor placed any record of payment of Non-Agricultural Assessment Tax under the provisions of NALA Act, 1963. The above facts would manifest that the nature of lands are agriculture and protected tenancy rights were crystallized by the year 1958 under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act. Such vested tenancy rights cannot be divested by a subsequent reclassification under UDA Act, 1975. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 24.03.2000 does not retrospectively extinguish protected tenancy rights. The findings of the Joint Collector to the contrary are set aside.
36. Issue No.B) Whether the report of the RDO dated 27.07.1981 has any value, and whether the RDO has jurisdiction to determine who is the protected tenant under Rule 14 read with Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950?
93 CVBR,J
CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
i) Findings of the RDO:
The RDO stated that the report dated 27.07.1981 was upheld in W.P.No.4059 of 1982 and confirmed in W.A.No.1420 of 1987. As no further appeal was filed, the findings have attained finality and are binding on the Government. Therefore, the matter cannot be reopened.
ii) Findings of the Joint Collector:
The Joint Collector clarified that the RDO conducted the enquiry only on the directions of in W.P.No.4590/1980, and not as an authority under the Tenancy Act. The report is thus only a piece of evidence and not a statutory order. Consequently, the RDO lacked jurisdiction under Rule 14 or 26 to determine protected tenancy, and the RDO's findings were set aside.
iii) Findings of this Court:
a) This Court, vide order dated 17.02.1981 in W.P.No.4590 of 1980, directed that an enquiry be conducted by the District Collector, Hyderabad, or any other officer not below the rank of RDO, to ascertain: (i) whether the petitioners therein were declared as protected tenants of the lands in question, including Sy.Nos.46 and 47; (ii) under what provision and when such declaration was made;
94 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and (iii) whether the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest had surrendered tenancy rights according to law, and if so, when and in which proceedings. In compliance with these directions, the RDO has considered various documents filed before him which were marked as exhibits and basing on the same, submitted a detailed report dated 27.07.1981 to this Court, which became part of the judicial order. The relevant portions of the RDO Report dated 27.07.1981 are extracted hereunder:
In support of their claim the following documents have been filed:
1) Certified extract of the Tenancy Register prepared Under Section 37-A of the A.P. Ex-A1 T A Act 1950 marked as
2) Certified extract of the Tenancy Register prepared Under Sec. 37-A of the AP TA. Ex-A1(a) Act 1950 after incorporating the Tahsildar orders dt. 6:11.1979
3) Certified copy of the judgment dated 16-02-1978 of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1977 Ex-A-2
4) Certified copy of the judgment dated 1st February 1979 in C.R.P. No. 425 and 675 of 1977 Ex-A-3
5) The notice dated 10.4.1958 the Tribunal Tahsildar issued under Section 37-A publishing the provisional list of the protected Ex-A-4 Tenants prepared Under Section 37-A for the Gachibowli (Village) The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, first respondent filed a written statement stating that he is an interested party as the lands in Sy. Nos. 37; 40;142;
43; 44; 45; 46; 47 53 measuring 114-37 Acres are Government lands, obtained due to the surrender by the pattadar/land holder under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act 1973 in accordance with the orders dated 9.12.1975 of the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer land Reforms Tribunal) Hyderabad West. He further stated that the said lands were taken over possession on 13-10-1976 by the Government. He further stated that after having taken over possession of the said lands on 13.10.1976 an extent of 31-434 cents in Sy. No. 46 and 47 was allotted on lease to Maharshi Institute of creative Intelligence by the Government in their orders in G.O. Ms. No. 549 Rev. Department dated 20-04-1979. He further stated that there were protected tenants on these lands but surrendered their tenancy rights voluntarily as such they are stopped from claiming back the lands. The (Tahsildar has submitted 95 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the following files and Registers in support of his claims which were got marked as Exhibits.
1) Certified copy of the judgement of Land Reforms Tribunal (ARDO) Hyderabad West Ex-D1 in file No: LRW 147/75 dated 31.5.1975 in respect of ownership certificates Under section 38-E of Tenancy Act.
2) Taluk. Office file No. D.Dis. A4/2556/66 connected to surrender of PT Register Under Ex-D2 section 19 of Hyderabad Tenancy -
Agricultural Laws Act 1950
3) Taluk Office File No.LRW 47/75 of ARDO Hyderabad West connected to proceedings Ex-D-3 U/section 38-E of Tenancy Act.
4) Taluk Office File No.CC 264/W/75 connected to surrender of surplus land by Ex-D-4 the land holder to Kashtopa Corporation and taking over possession by conducting Panchanama.
5) Taluk Office File No.D.Dis D2/2790/77 connected to the proposals of the Tahsildar Ex-D-5 for Leasing out the lands in favour of Maharshi Institute of Creative Intelligence.
6) Taluk Office File No. D3/4565/79 connected to leasing out the lands in favour of Ex-D-6 Maharshi Institute of Creative Intelligence.
As per G.O. Ms. No:
7) Taluk Office File No.D.Dis. B4/4953/78 connected to the succession Proceedings of Ex-D-7 the Tahsildar
8) Taluk Office File No. 84/1134/80 connected to the Enquiry U/section 40 of Tenancy Act Ex-D-8 before the Tahsildar Sri D.S. Raju National Director of Maharshi Institute of Creative Intelligence in his written statement submitted that M/s. Kashtopa Corporation represented by its Managing Partner Sri Rasiklal Kandar filed declaration U/section. 8 (1)- of ceiling Act 1973. in CC NO. 264/ w/75 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West for the lands purchased by his two partners namely Sri Kantilal C Sheth and Rasiklal Kamdar. It is stated that after having processed the declaration in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Act, giving the details of the publication of various notices the orders were passed on 09.12.1975 directing the Land holder to surrender 2.2862 extent being in excess of the ceiling limit, the corporation it is further stated has surrendered the land in Sy. Nos. 37 40 42 to 47 53 35 and 36 measuring 137-17 acres to the Government, after having failed in appeal and revision petitions before the High Court. After complying with the formalities as required in the rules and the Act, through various notices and forms, the lands were stated to have taken possession by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West on 18-1-1977. The lands which were taken possession by Government from M/s. Kastopa Corporation, are said to include Sy. Nos. 46 and 47 measuring, 11-70 cents and 19-73 cents respectively. It is further stated that on an
96 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch application by the Maharshi Institute of Creative Intelligence to the Government for leasing its lands for developing as. Ashram for Transcendental Meditation to develop the personality of the Individual, the Government has issued orders in G/.O.Ms. NO. 594 dated 20-4-1979 leasing out an extent of Ac.31-43 in Sy. Nos. 46 and 47 of Gachibowli village for a period of 30 years after considering and accepting proposals submitted by the Collector through the Commissioner of Land Revenue. Accordingly after complying with the conditions and paying the lease amount and other expenses, under the directions of the Collector, the possession of the said land was delivered to the Institute on 25th June 1979 by the Tahsildar, Rajendernagar And Ever since the Institute is in possession of the said land. It is further submitted that the petitioners, instigated by the failure of the Kastopa Corporation in appeal and Revision Petitions to avoid surrender of the excess land, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4590 of 1980 before the High Court claiming the protected tenancy rights on the said lands. It is alleged that the patwari of Gachibowli village Sri. B.Venkata Narayana who has been manipulating the records by including names of his family members and his henchmen in the pahanies showing them wrongly as cultivators has managed to get the petition filed by the petitioners before the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar for a successors and contents of the original tenants. It is further submitted for succession certificate and on the said material the Tahsildar granted succession to the petitioners on 6.11.1979 without verifying the basis facts. It is further submitted that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors are in possession of the Sy.Nos. 46 and 47 for the last 30 years right from 1950 till date. it is further submitted that Under Section 40 of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 the deceased tenants must be in possession of the lands on the date of their death of granting the succession to his heirs. If this condition is not satisfied it is said that succession cannot be issued and for this reason, by the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar granting succession are not valid and are liable to be cancelled. It is asserted that the succession of the tenancy rights granted on 6.11.1979 does not bind the Institute as the Institute acquired the possession of the said lands from the Government (Tahsildar) on 25th June 1979 which is much earlier than granting of succession and the institute was also not a party to the said succession proceedings. Such vested right in respect of these lands cannot be disturbed without issuing a notice to the Institute and calling for its objections. It was further submitted that there is no provision under A. P.T.A. tenancy and Agricultural lands act to issue a certificate for joint tenancy under section 40 of the said act in favour of the heirs of the deceased tenants stating with some strangers totally unconnected with these tenant families. It was further submitted that Sri Kantilal C Sheth who has purchased these lands including Sy. Nos. 46 and 47 after having obtained necessary permission under section 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act. And the proceedings of the Tahsildar in according permission clearly shows that there was no objection of the tenants, if any should have surrendered the rights and that they were not in possession on the relevant date in the year, 1961 and these proceedings establish that even in the year 1961 there was no protected tenants on these lands. In respect of Sy. No. 47 that Sri. Md. Ismail and four others are stated to have surrendered their tenancy rights in the year 1966, in Tahsil File No. A4/2556 /65 dated 16-10-1966 and the Tahsildar accordingly deleted their names in the Tenancy Register. In respect of Sy.
97 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch No./ 46 it is stated that there was no Protected Tenants at any time from the year 1950 till to date the certified extracts of pahanies from the year, 1950 upto date, the certified copy of the tenancy record which were filed along with the written statement are said to have verified to established that there was no tenant in respect of Sy.No.46. It is further submitted that since the lands in: question which are within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad and are thereby governed by Urban Land Ceiling Act, the petitioners have to furnish declarations under the said. Act and to obtain a valid order, but the petitioners are said that they have never approached the competent authority by fi8ling the necessary declarations is referred as this itself evident to show that they are not in the possession of the land during the notified date even otherwise, it is stated, that the petitioners would be only entitled to hold 1000 Sq. meters each and they have to surrender the rest of the land to the Government. It is further submitted that the petitioners never raised any objection at the time of delivery of the land to the Institute on 29th June 1979 inspite of having given wide publicity as they were not in possession of this land at any time. It is further submitted that the land in question is a rocky land most uneven and unfit for any kind of cultivation and it is only a kancha land as such there was no cultivation at any time as is clear from the pahanies from the years, 1950 to 1980 as such it is stated that the allegation that the petitioners were cultivating this land is false. In support of its claims the following documents were filed, and got marked as exhibits.
1) Certified copy of the judgment of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West No.LRW Ex-C1 47 75 dated 31.5.1975
2) Certified extracts of the Pahani for S. Nos 46 and 47 for the years 1949-50 51-52 53-54. Ex-C2
3) Certified extract of the Sasala Pahani for Sy.
Nos. 46 and 47. for the year 1955-56 56-57 Ex-C3
57-58
4) Certified extract of the pahani for 'Sy. Nos.
46 and 47 for the years 1958-59 1959-60 Ex-C4 1960-61 and 1961-62.
5) Certified extract of the pahani for Sy. Nos.
46 and 47 for the years 1962-63 1963-64 Ex-C5 64-65, 65-66.
6) Certified extract of the pahani for Sy.Nos. 46 and 47 for the year 1966-67, 67-68, 68-69, Ex-C6 69-70.
7) Certified extract of the Pahani for Sy. Nos.
46 and 47 for years 1970-71 76-77 77-78 Ex-C7
8) Certified extract of the Pahani for Sy.No. 46 and 47 for the year 1978-79 79-80 Ex-C8
9) Certified extract of Tenancy Record Register, 1950-51 for Sy. Nos.37, 40 42 43, 47 Ex-C9
10) Certified copy of the judgement of the Land Reforms Tribunal C.C.NO.264/W/75 dt. Ex-C10 9.12.1975
11) Certified copy of the judgement in File No. 264/W/76 dt. 8.10.1976 Ex-C11 98 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch The third party petitioners Syed Khaja and others have: submitted in their petition dated 21st April 1981 that Kannamet Balaiah and others who filed petitions before the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar in respect of Sy. No. 37; 40; 42 to 47; 51; 52 and 53 misrepresenting that the original protected tenants including Sarvasri Manik reddy and Kasim'Ali died long back, obtained succession certificate which is to be cancelled. It is further submitted that they were informed by the. Tahsildar, Rajendranagar during the enquiry proceeding of a case in which some of them had submitted a detailed counter, that as per the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4590 / 80, the Revenue Divisional Officer was appointed as enquiry officer as such that case has been stayed till enquiry is completed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. They further submitted that during the pendency of the said proceedings some of them had presented a petition in person to the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar on 17-3-1981 but no action is said to have been taken. It is further submitted that the third party petitioners one to eight and ten are the heirs of the deceased. Protected Tenants in whose favour certificates are said to have been issued under section 37-A of 'Tenancy Act, as such they are the interested persons and entitled to hold the above lands. The petitioners are stated to have no locus standi except having some exparte orders from Hon'ble High Court: It is further stated that the villages patwari and the petitioners having construed illegal proceedings which have already taken place just to deprive the rights of these third party petitioners. The village officer is said to be prejudicially acting against the interest of these : third party petitioners and certifying that the living persons as dead. As such they requested to implead them and to adjudicate their tenancy rights as protected tenants. Some these third party. petitioners have also filed affidavits claiming their heir-ship to the deceased tenants. In support of their claims they filed the following documents which were got marked as exhibits:
1) Tenancy Certificate No. 4 in favour of Yedas Laxmaiah and Ahmed Sab etc. Ex-E-1
2) Tenancy Certificate No. 5 in favour of Ahmed Sab, Kasim Ali etc. Ex-E-2
3) Tenancy Certificate No. 14 in favour of Gadda Lachiga and Hanif Saheb. Ex-E-3
4) Tenancy. Certificate No. 15 in favour of Manik Reddy, Gadda Veeraiah etc. Ex-E-4
5) Tenancy certificate No. 16 in favour of Ismail (not clearly legible) Ex-E-5
6) Tenancy Certificate No. 6 in favour of Kasim Ali, Gadda. Maisa and etc. Ex-E-6
7) Tenancy Certificate No. 9 in favour of Bal Linga, Yousuf Ali etc. Ex-E-7
99 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Another third party petitioner Sri. Kantilal C. Sheth has submitted that the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 37, 40; 42 to 47 51; 52 and 53 admeasuring 157 acres and 3 guntas at Gachibowli village are his patta lands as they are said to have purchased from Smt. Iqbal Fatima. Smt. Kaneez Fatima and Rashid Fatima, daughters of late Ilyas Burani after obtaining permission under section 47 and 48 of the A.P. T.A. Tenancy on Agricultural lands Act, 1950 vide permission No..L. Dis A3 11422/61 dated 25th August 1961 from the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West it is further submitted that the petitioners protected tenants have already surrendered their rights before the Tahsildar and passed orders in File No. A3 / 10805/64 dated 18th February 65(2) A3/3749/65 dated 2nd April 1965 (3) A4/2556/66 dated 16th October 1966 and accordingly the names of all protected tenants have been deleted from the tenancy Register and the same was also held by the Additional Revenue. Divisional Officer 9land Reforms Tribunal) Hyderabad West in his Order No. LRW/47/75 dated 31.5.1975 it is further stated that the petitioners protected tenants have filed a compromise petition dated 30th may 1975 before the Additional Revenue Divisional officer (Land Reforms Tribunal) Hyderabad West in File No. LRW/47/75 and for that it is stated that the petitioners were paid compensation and holding the receipts to that effect. It is also stated that the petitioners have deliberately omitted this third party petitioner to implead, so that the parties already impleaded to the suit may not effectively contest the suit and desired to be present in the suit to avoid any collusive tactics between the petitioners and respondents. In support of his claim he has filed the following documents which are got marked as Exhibits.
1) Memo of the office of the Tahsildar, Rajendra nagar informing that the copies of the orders Ex-B.1 sought for in File No.F3 / 10805 / 64 cannot be issued as the said file has been destroyed due to efflux of time.
2) Permission under section 47 and 48 of
Tenancy-Act 1950 bearing No. L. Dis Ex-B.2
A3/1142261, dated 26.8.1961
3) Registered sale deed dated 2-9-1961 for the
purchase of lands by. Sri Kantilal C Sheth for Ex-B.3
and on behalf of Kashtopa Corporation
document no. 2500 of 1961
4) Certified extract of the pahani for Sy. Nos. 37; Ex-B.4
40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52 and 53 for the year
1950-51
5) Certified extract of the pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, Ex-B.5
40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year
1954
6) Certified extract of the pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, Ex-B.6
40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year
1952 & 1953
7) Certified Extract of Sasala Pahani Ex-B.7
8) Certified Extract of Sasala Pahani Ex-B.8
9) Certified Extract of Sasala Pahani Ex-B.9
10) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.10
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1959-60; 60-61
11) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.11
100 CVBR,J
CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1960-61
12) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.12
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1960-61 & 61-62
13) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.13
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1962-63 & 1963-
64
14) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.14
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1964-65
15) Certified extract of. Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.15
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1966
16) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.16
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1966
17) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.17
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1966-67; 1968
18) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.18
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1968-69; 1969-70
19) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.19
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1970-71
20) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.20
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1971-72
21) Certified extract of. Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.21
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1972-73
22) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40; 42, Ex-B.22
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1973-74
23) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.23
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1974-75
24) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.24
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1975-76
25) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.25
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1976-77
26) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, Ex-B.26
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1977-78
27) Certified extract of Pahani for Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, Ex-B.27
43, 45, 51, 52 & 53 for the year 1978-79
All the parties did not choose for examining any witnesses except respondent no.2 who desired to examine two witnesses namely Sarvasri Harinarayana Babu Dy. Tahsildar and Sri V. Narsimha Rao, Dy. Tahsildar, The petitioners and others parties have clearly informed that the documents submitted are sufficient to prove the respective claims as such no oral evidence is required.
xxx xxxx...
Findings:
As could be from the above discussion and arguments of the respondents 1 and 2 Sri Kantilal C: Sheth the third party petitioner, who are contending that the petitioners have surrendered their rights referring to the proceedings of the Tahsildar surrendered the rights under section 10 of the Tenancy Act in File No. A5/1080/64 dated 10.8.1965, A3/3759/64 dated 2.4.1965, A3/2559/66 containing surrender proceedings, file LFW/47 175 of the land reforms tribunal(APDO) Hyderabad West, containing the compromise and orders deleting the 101 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch names of protected tenants from patta proceedings under section 38-E and a copy of the Memo issue by the Tahsill office stating that the File A5/1080/64 and A3/5749/64 were destroyed, the Taluk Office file No. CCP 4/W/75 containing verification of holding under ceiling Law and file No. D.Dis. B2/5790/77, 82/45 8/75 and the certified extract of the pahanies for Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, 44,45, 51, 52 and 53 for the years 1950-51, to 1979-80 except 1954- and certified extracts of the pahanies for Sy. No. 47 and 48 for the years 1950-51 1979-80 except 1954-55 it is abundantly clear that some of the petitioners and predecessors of some of the petitioners who are no doubt the some persons of the Tenancy Record of. 1958, have surrendered, their rights under section 19 of Tenancy Act to the extent of Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, 45 and 47 in favour of Smt.Lingamma, the Tenancy Record of 1951 in which 20 persons were declared as protested tenants, contains a note the effect that a dispute between the land owner and the tenants in respect of cultivation and possession for certain lands inclusive of Sy. Nos. 37, 40 42, 43 and was existing and the suit was pending 'before the Government authorities.
This shows that there was a long drawn out dispute between the tenants and the land holder and the suit which was filed by the land owner Smt. Lingamma before the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the year 1952 was ultimately resolved by the compromise between the before the High Court in an appeal petition. In pursuance of compromise decree the protected tenants and the legal heirs of dead protected tenants who died during the pendency of the suit, have filed their sworn petition before the Tahsildar under section 19 of Tenancy Act they are accordingly names were deleted in the years, 1965-66. This is at one side, at the other side some of the suit lands in Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43 and 47 of Smt. Lingamma were purchased by one Sri Ilyas Burni saheb and the patta was affected in his name in the year, and since then he was in occupation of them and not the protected tenants as per the entries. In the (Pahanies) Village Accounts. Ilyas burni, who was already holding some other lands in 'Sy. Nos. 44, 45 46, 51. 52, 53 as patta in his name, was occupation of these as per the entries in pahanies. But in the year 1959 under section 37-A, 16 persons have been declared as protected tenants. If the entries of possession and cultivation in the pahanies are of any bearing to the provisions of Sec. 37-A as clear form the language of this section, there could have been no declaration of protected tenants on the lands held by Ilyas burni the year 1958. But it is not known how they were declared as protected tenants under section 37-A on the lands held by Ilyas Burni in the year 1958. In the absence of the record of proceedings under section 37-A nothing could be said about the declaration the protected tenants. However, the entries of recording protected tenants the Tenancy Register of 1958, is the conclusive proof to say that some of the petitioners and predecessors of some of the petitioners were declared as protected tenants: Whether this declaration was contested or not or what happened them, is not known as nothing is produced. Hence I do not agree with the arguments of Sri Kanthilal C Sheth that there are no protected tenants under Section 37-A of Tenancy act. But one thing is certain, providing that the petitioners were the tenants of the Ilyas Burni in the year 1958 the declaration of protected tenancy on the lands namely. Sy. No.37, 40, 42, 43 and 47 was rather incorrect as on these lands the petitioners and their predecessors were already holding protected tenancy rights. The section 37-A is quite clear that Every person who is the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy 102 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act, 1955 holds as tenant is land in respect of which he is not deemed to be a protected tenant under this Act, shall be deemed to be a P. Ts since some of the petitioners and their predecessors were not tenants but actually holding the protected tenancy rights on the said lands, as such they could not have again been deemed or declared as protected tenants. However, whether that was right or wrong the matter is not left open for me to decide in this enquiry. The ticklish issue is that the surrender of the tenancy rights effected : in the year 1965 on the lands Sy. Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, and 47 along with other lands of Smt. Lingamma though they do not belong to her by that time, can be taken as the surrender of protected tenancy rights acquired in the year 1959 in favour of the then present land holder Kantilal C. Sheth. Here it is not clear why the surrender of protected tenancy rights on the said lands was carried out in favour of Lingamma when she was not holding patta, even Ilyas Burni was not in the picture then as after his death his successors namely Iqbal Fatima, Kanees Fatima and Rasheed Fatima have come on the record as pattadars, sold them to Sri. KanthiLal C. Sheth in. 1961. Here even presuming that the surrender validity took place in favour of the land holder to the extent of suit lands, there remain still some more lands in Sy.. Nos. 44, 45, 46, 51, 52 and 53 on which no surrender under section 19 took place as no evidence of proceedings under section 19 of the act, has been produced. Thus it is clear that there has been surrender of rights by the petitioners and their predecessors is interest on the lands in Sy, Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43 and 47 in the year 1965 in favour of Smt. Lingamma in pursuance of the compromise decrees of High Court in A.S. No. 25 of 1958, though she was not holding any patta rights on that day on this surrender cannot deemed for the rights given in the year 1958,though the protected tenants were never in possession right from 1958 as per the entries in the village accounts(pahanies)... Under the proceedings of section 38-E of A.P. TA Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act 1950 before the Land Reforms Tribunal APDO Hyderabad West Division, for granting patta rights to the protected tenants as required therein, a provisional list indicating the names of 16 protected tenants as per the Tenancy Register was issued under rule 4 (2) and a copy of it was served on the protected tenants petitioners and land holder and it was published in the village Chavadi as required under the rules. The protected tenants petitioners have filed a Petition before the Tribunal Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West for granting patta under section 38-E. The Landholder Sri Kantilal C.Sheth also filed objection petition stating that the protected tenants shown in provisional list were never in possession of the land and have also surrendered protected tenancy rights before the Tahsildar, as such, the proceedings under section 38-E dropped. Meanwhile both the parties have compromised and filed a compromise petition through as advocate stating that they have privately decided the dispute and waiving and surrendering their protected Tenancy Rights in respect of the ands concerned herein in favour of Sri Kanthilal C Sheth and his predecessors in inherent. The Tribunal on the basis of the documents filed by the land holder held that all the protected tenants have surrendered their rights as evidenced in his tenancy Register, 1951 and all the names being common for 1958 it was taken that they have surrendered the protected tenancy rights, and the claim of the petitioners was divisional stating that they have no locus standi after surrendering their rights over the said land in 103 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the years 1965-66 before the Tahsildar. Sri Kanthilal C Sheth the third party petitioner has submitted in his statement that in view of this compromise, compensation was also paid to the petitioners and is holding the receipt to that effect. The respondents 1and 2 and Sri Kanthilal C. Sheth, the third party petitioner contended that, though the petitioners are not the protected tenants and they were not in possession right from the year 1958 in which the Tenancy Record was prepared, the said orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal is another conclusive proof to the effect that "the protected tenants have surrendered their rights on the suit lands. It is seen that after these orders of the land Reforms Tribunal, the protected tenants petitioners did not agitate by filing by petition before the competent courts for granting of patta rights under section 38-E setting aside the said orders till today. It is a noteworthy po9int to say that the opportunity under section 38-E, which was more beneficial than that of claiming the protected tenancy rights, which was provided by the land reforms tribunal APDO Hyderabad West issuing the provisional list granting patta to the petitioners was not availed, the protected tenancy rights in to ownership, such an important benefit on enlarging the protected tenancy rights into patta rights was lost by the protected tenants petitioners. Had they really been interested in the lands as claiming now, irrespective of possession whether enjoying or not as provided in the said section, they could not have lost and they could not have been silent all these days. Hence it give rise to suspicion whether they were holding the protected tenancy rights subsisting on the suit lands:
In respect of the proceedings under Land Ceiling Act before the land Reforms Tribunal, as could be seen from the Record of enquiry of Taluk Office and the orders passed by the land Reforms Tribunal, the petitioners never approached the land Reforms Tribunal with any objection claiming that the suit lands are held by them as protected tenants as such they should be deleted from the computation or should not be accepted as surplus surrendered lands. When most of lands concerned herein were surrendered by the Kashtopa Corporation, due publicity issuing notice was given to the public in general in the form is prescribed and in the manner required therein. No objection of any sort were presented to the Land Reforms Tribunal. The lands surrendered when sent for verification whether they are encumbered in any manner, the Tahsil Authorities have made an enquiry.
In the proceedings of enquiry of Dy. Tahsildar Land Reforms has also recorded the statement of the patwari of the village. The patwari deposed that there protected tenants over the 'suit lands, but they have surrendered their rights long back under the proceedings of under section 38-E, and their names have not been deleted from the protected tenancy Register. He further disposed that the protected tenants are not in possession of the suit lands and there was no encumbrances over the said lands on the land Holders m/s Kashtopa Corporation are in possession of the land since the date of purchase. Accordingly, land Reforms Tribunal accepted surrender of the lands and ordered for the taking over possession. The Revenue Inspector, Lingampally Circle in the presence of the Dy. Tahsildar Land Reforms has taken over possession from the. Kashtopa Corporation. While taking possession a Panchanam was conducted apart from getting prescribed forms filled in and duly
104 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch signed by the concerned. For conducting panchanama 3 panches who are Residents of the Village have been selected and panchanam to the effect that the lands were handed over by the Rashiklal Kamdhar on behalf of Kashtopa Corporation and taken over by the Revenue Inspector, Lingampally, Circle has been made.
From a perusal of this Panchanama, on interesting thing has come to notice. is that one Gadda Chinna Babaiah S/o. Bala Lingaiah one of the Panchas is found as one of the petitioners to this suit and another interesting point is that while handing over and taking over process and going on, Sarvasri Gadda Maisaiaih, Kondaiah and others have come to the site and ask the Revenue Officials whether they can make use of the grass on the lands since they were in agreement for the purpose upto "Mrigasira Kaithi", but the officers informed then that on these lands nobody should under as they have become Government Lands and if they are interested to take them for granting purposes, they should approach Tahsil Office only. This piece of evidence clearly shows that the petitioners protected tenants are aware of the Ceiling proceedings of the. lands concerned herein and of the surrender of excess surplus lands to the Government and it goes against their contention, claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment for the last more than 30 years and they have agitated and resisted when they came to know of the allotment of the land to the 2nd respondent through the GQ on 13-9-1980. Had they been really in possession and enjoyment by virtue of the protected tenancy rights they could have even protested on the date of taking over possession of the land by the Revenue Inspector One of the petitioners at Sl.No. 6 was party to the Panchanam conducted; at the time of handling over and taking over of the land and other petitioners who were present on the site were also made enquiries with the Government officials whether they will be allowed to use the land. for grassing purpose as it was in agreement from the land holders for the term ending with next "Mrigasira Karthi". Thus it shows the hollowness of the claim of the petitioners that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands as P.Ts. In view of these facts the contention of the petitioners that the protected tenants were in possession and enjoyment of the lands by virtue of the protect tenancy rights does not hold good. I argue with the arguments of the learned counsels to Sri. kanthilal C. Sheth and of the second respondent that the protected tenants were never in possession right from 1954 as evidenced by the village accounts (Pahanies) and the proceedings took place before the Land Reforms Tribunal (A.R.D.O.) Hyderabad West under Section 38-E for granting patta rights to the protected tenants and the records available of the ceiling law proceedings. As regards the contentions of the learned counsel to the 2nd Respondent that the rights of the protected tenants if any are abdicated or extinguished as they are barred under section 27 of the Limitation Act as held by the High Court in the judgement reported in 1978 (2) A.P.L.J. page 86. In the circumstances as discussed above of the evidence produced, I have no hesitation in agreeing with him as all the material produced will go in favour of it only. But the question posed by the High Court to decide is, "Did the petitioners or any of them or their predecessors in interest surrender their Tenancy Rights, according to law and if no which of them when and in which proceedings. Since the issue is of the surrender and that to according to land the extinguishments of rights is not the subject matter to decide, it is not desirable for me to give 105 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch specific findings on it. Here (cording to law means according to the provisions available in the Tenancy Act for making surrender of Tenancy Rights. The section 19 of said Act lays provision for surrender. According to which it should be in writing and is admitted before the Tahsildar and it should be made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar. NO evidence of the action taken or proceedings conducted under section 10 of the Act, was produced. Thus it was clearly be said that no such process of surrender by the protected tenants petitioners under section 10 for the rights acquired under Section 37A has taken place so far, though the petitioners claim that they are in possession and enjoyment is found baseless.
b) The Division Bench in W.A.No.1420 of 1987, after taking note of the objections raised by the District Collector and considering the orders of the learned Single Judge, upheld the validity of RDO's report. Since the State did not challenge the said decision, the findings recorded therein attained finality. The Joint Collector, being a quasi-judicial authority, has no power to question the judicial sanctity of a report that was accepted and upheld by this Court. Section 158 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, empowers the RDO to entertain appeals and also to exercise original jurisdiction in matters arising under the Land Revenue Act or any other law in force. This indicates that the RDO, as a Superior Officer, is competent to act as the original authority under Rule 14 read with Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950, more particularly when this Court has directed to submit a report on the specific issues for effective adjudication of disputes. Moreover, Section 88 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 states that the Tahsildar, the Tribunal, and the Collector shall perform such 106 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch functions as may be prescribed or referred to them by the Government. Section 89 of the Tenancy Act further provides that the procedure under Sections 149 and 150 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act shall apply to inquiries under the Tenancy Act, and that the Tahsildar, Tribunal, and Collector shall exercise powers akin to those of a Civil Court.
c) The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respondents placing much reliance on Paragraph 13 (d)(xvii) of the common order dated 25.02.2013 passed in CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch, has submitted that earlier orders passed in W.A.No.1420 of 1987 is non- est in law and the report relied in the said judgment is not having any evidentiary value. Admittedly in earlier occasion, the learned Single Judge of this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India decided the W.P.No.4590 of 1980 vide order dated 17-02-1981, directing the RDO to conduct an enquiry and place a report. Seeking implementation of the RDO report dated 27.07.1981 and issuance of tenancy certificates, the tenants filed W.P.No.4059 of 1982 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.1987, on the same subject in issue and parties also same, except some of the respondents herein, who said to have purchased the property pendente lite. The order of the learned Single Judge was assailed before the Hon'ble Division Bench under Clause 15 of the 107 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Letters Patent. The Hon'ble Division Bench taking note of the facts and the report of the RDO dated 27.07.1981 dismissed the appeal confirming the report and observations made by the learned Single Judge. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch dated 25.02.2013 while exercising the powers under revisional jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act has observed that the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in WA No.1420 of 1987 is coram non judice. The issue relating to declaring the earlier judgment passed by the Division Bench in exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India can it be said as coram non judice by a revisional Court with equivalent strength is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shabna Abdulla vs Union of India134 while placing reliance on the decision in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand135 observed that Coordinate Bench's view of same High Court cannot be ignored even if considered to be incorrect in law and the only option is to refer the same to Larger Bench.
d) In the latest decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. The Tahsildar and others 136 observed as follows:
134
2024 INSC 612 135 (2008) 10 SCC 1 136 2025 INSC 274
108 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch "35. If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both and the only way to do so is to adopt the wise suggestion of Lord Quinn v. Leathern Halsbury given in 1901 AC 495 at p.506 and reiterated by the Privy Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Council in Commr. of Income Tax Lahore , AIR 1940 PC230:
"...... every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found."
and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand."
e) Be that as it may, the Government while exercising powers under Section 97 r/w Section 35 and 37 of the Tenancy Act has framed the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1950 (for short "Rules, 1950"). The Government in exercise of powers under Section 7 of Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, read with Hyderabad District Officer Change of Designation and Construction of References Act, 1950, issued notification vide G.O.Ms.No.72 Revenue Department dated 27.01.1960 published in A.P Gazette Part I dated 11.02.1960 (Page
416) which specifies that the Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector or the Sub-Collector, incharge of Revenue Division of Districts of Hyderabad Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh, may be called as "Revenue Divisional Officer" (RDO). Rule 12 of the Rules, 1950 states that the Second Taluqdar (RDO/Deputy Collector), the Taluqdar (Collector), the Board of Revenue (CCLA), or the Government may of their own accord at any time or within 3 months from the date of an 109 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch order in appeal under Rule 11, on the application of any party, call for and examine the Provisional Record of Tenancies relating to any entry and pass orders thereon as they deem fit and proper. This would make it clear that the RDO as a Deputy Collector is conferred with power on his own accord or on the application of any person, call for and examine the provisional record of tenancies and pass appropriate orders.
f) In addition to the above findings, it is important to emphasize that when a judicial forum like the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically calls for a fact-finding report from the designated officer, not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer and the report submitted in compliance with such judicial directions becomes part and parcel of the judicial proceedings. Such a report carries not only evidentiary value but also sanctity, particularly when the same is accepted and attained finality. An administrative or quasi-judicial authority like the Joint Collector cannot sit over an appellate authority over the judicially affirmed factual report which was upheld by this Court. Furthermore, Rule 14 and Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950, prescribe the procedure for determination of protected tenancy status and for recording entries in the tenancy register. While these functions are ordinarily carried out 110 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch by the Tahsildar, the enabling provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the Tenancy Act, read with the powers conferred on Revenue Officers under the Telangana Land Revenue Act, make it clear that superior officers like the RDO or Collector exercising power under the Rules, 1950, are not divested of jurisdiction, particularly when exercising delegated functions or acting upon specific judicial directions.
g) The reasoning of the Joint Collector in treating the RDO's report as lacking jurisdiction or evidentiary value is untenable. Thus it is held that the RDO acted within jurisdiction in accordance with law and the findings recorded therein are binding subsequently in all proceedings emanated from the Tenancy Act. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the Joint Collector on this issue are set aside.
37. Issue No.C) Whether respondents in CRP No.6708/2003 have the locus standi to contest the application of the petitioners therein for grant of sale certificate under Section 38E or 38A of the Tenancy Act or they may only approach the civil court or other appropriate forum to canvass their rights, if any, in the property purchased by them?
111 CVBR,J
CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
i) Findings of the RDO:
The RDO held that the respondents are third-party purchasers and strangers to the original tenancy rights. They have no locus standi to oppose the grant of certificates under Sections 38-A or 38-E of Tenancy Act, and their remedy lies only before the civil court.
ii) Findings of the Joint Collector:
The Joint Collector took a different view, stating that since the respondents claim through sale deeds executed by both the landholder and alleged tenants, they do have a right to question the grant of ownership certificates. He further stated that as the subject land is no longer governed by the Tenancy Act in view of G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000, the appropriate forum would be the civil court and the findings recorded by the RDO were held to be incorrect.
iii) Findings of this Court:
a) It is the case of petitioners that the respondents/purchasers being third-party purchasers have no legs to stand to object the statutory process initiated under the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that the respondents alleged to have acquired rights under registered sale deeds purportedly executed by the landholders and some individuals stated to be protected tenants, but there was no valid or
112 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch lawful authority shown in favour of such transactions. The petitioners further argued that these sale transactions were related to plotting and layout development for residential purposes, which are outside the purview of the Tenancy Act. It is pointed out that under the statutory scheme, the benefits under Sections 38-A and 38-E of the Tenancy Act are strictly confined to the relationship between the protected tenant and the landholder, and no third party or stranger can object to such proceedings.
b) Whereas, it is the case of the respondents/purchasers that their claim is legitimate since the sale deeds were executed by the landowners and some alleged tenants, and thus they had acquired valid title. Alternatively, it is submitted that in view of G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000, the subject lands were reclassified for non- agricultural use and the Tenancy Act no longer applies to such lands. Therefore, the purchasers had the right to object to the issuance of certificates under the Tenancy Act and Tenancy Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide such issues.
c) The RDO after considering the pleadings and records vide order dated 15.10.2013 held that respondents are third-party purchasers and strangers to the original tenancy rights. It was further observed that respondents had no locus standi to oppose the grant of ownership certificates under Section 38-A or 38-E of the Tenancy Act. The RDO opined that any claim or right asserted by the purchasers 113 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch could be raised only before the competent civil court and not before the revenue or Tenancy Tribunal. The Joint Collector, however, disagreed with the RDO and held that since the respondents had purchased lands through registered sale deeds from both landholders and alleged tenants, they have the right to question the grant of ownership certificates. He further opined that in view of G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000, which reclassified the land to a residential zone, the Tenancy Act ceased to apply, and hence, the appropriate remedy lies before the civil court.
d) The Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Validation) Act, 1961 retrospectively validating the Tenancy Act, 1950 together with the amendments thereto. This validating Act of 1961 received the assent of the President and was placed in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 01-01-1973 notifying all the Districts in Telangana under Section 38E for the purpose of statutory transfer of ownership to protected tenants. Section 97 conferred rule making power upon the Government and Section 99 barred the jurisdiction of a civil Court to settle or decide or deal with any question which is required to be settled by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or Board of Revenue or Government. Section 38 enables a protected tenant to purchase the land holders interest in the land held by the former as a protected tenant. Sub-sections (2) to (8) of 114 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Section 38 prescribe the procedure for the exercise of the right conferred upon the protected tenant to purchase the land holders interest in the land. The restrictions imposed under sub-section (7) of Section 38 will not apply to sale by the landholder to a protected tenant by mutual consent, provided the price payable therefor is agreed to between them. Section 38A makes the restrictions imposed under Section 38 (7) inapplicable to cases of sale by mutual consent between the land holder and the protected tenant. Under Section 38E, the Government is empowered to declare, by notification in the Gazette in respect of any area and from such date as may be specified therein, that the ownership of all lands, held by the protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their land holders, stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants. In respect of the land held by the protected tenant, the land owner can relinquish his right in favour of the tenant by executing sale certificate under Section 38A.
e) In the cases on hand, this Court upon examination of the entire record finds that the respondents in these revisions are third- party purchasers claiming through registered sale deeds allegedly executed by the landholder and certain individuals stated to be protected tenants. However, no evidence has been placed on record to establish that the said vendors had lawful authority to alienate the lands. Moreover, the transactions are layout developments and 115 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch residential plot sales, which fall entirely outside the purview of the Tenancy Act. It is settled law that proceedings under Sections 38-A and 38-E of Tenancy Act are confined to the statutory relationship between the landholder and the protected tenant. The respondents herein have no locus standi under the Tenancy Act to object statutory process. The Tenancy authorities cannot adjudicate upon the validity of sale deeds or determine title or possession disputes arising out of private conveyances. Further, the declarant/land owner has not denied the existence of tenants over the lands for their entitlement of tenancy certificates. Once they are entitled for issuance of tenancy certificates, on the consent of the owner/declarant, it is immaterial whether the certificates issued are under Section 38E or Section 38A of the Act. Both the provisions confer ownership to the tenants and the same is not incongruous with the object of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for issuance of certificates under Sections 38E and 38A of the Act.
f) Further, in Para 87 of the common order dated 25.02.2013 passed in CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch, the Division Bench observed that "in the absence of all the sale deeds under which respondents 8 to 72 claim right, title or interest in the lands purchased by them being brought on record, it is difficult and inappropriate for this Court to examine the existence or extent of the rights of the respondents, under the sale deeds". It is contended by the petitioners 116 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch that the sale deeds are void ab initio for violation of Sections 38D and 19 of the Tenancy Act, particularly because no evidence was furnished to show compliance with the requirement under Section 38D to offer the land to the protected tenant before alienating to third parties. The contention of the respondents that some of the tenants had joined as executants in the sale deeds also fails to meet legal scrutiny. In view of the nature of disputes concerning title, possession, and alienation, the questions relating to the rights of the respondents whether they have purchased from the rightful owners, and whether their vendors were in possession on the date of execution of sale deeds and whether those transactions are the issues that are required to be adjudicated by the competent civil court.
g) Further, the Joint Collector having stated that in the given circumstances, the Civil Court would be the appropriate forum for the respondents to get their right adjudicated qua subject lands ought not have decided the validity of the sale deeds. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the revenue authorities are not conferred with the power to decide the validity or otherwise of the Registered Sale Deeds alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondents and it is inappropriate for this Court to enter upon the disputed issues and if any observations are made with regard to the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds, that will have an impact over the rights of the parties and as such, the parties are at liberty to 117 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief, in accordance with law, if they are so advised. Therefore, the findings of the Joint Collector with regard to the validity of the sale deeds is set aside and the findings of the RDO are upheld.
38. Issue No.D) Whether the order dated 9.12.1975 of the LRT determining the holding of the declarant Kastopa which has attained finality extinguishes the rights of the petitioners in CRP No.6708/2003, if any, under the Tenancy Act? and Issue No.E) If the petitioners in CRP No. 6708/2003 are found entitled to ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, would their right to purchase under Section 38 or 38-A of the said Act get exhausted?
i) Findings of the RDO:
The RDO held that despite the LRT proceedings, the petitioners' tenancy rights are not extinguished, and they are entitled to ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act for the land admeasuring Ac.42.24 gts in Sy.Nos.51 to 53 (part). The petitioners' rights prevail over the orders passed under the Ceiling Act. Further, the RDO held that petitioners are eligible only for ownership certificates under Section 38-E, not under Section 38-A. 118 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
ii) Findings of the Joint Collector:
The Joint Collector found that the protected tenants had voluntarily surrendered their tenancy rights during 1965-66, and the same was accepted and finalized by the Land Reforms Tribunal in its order dated 09.12.1975. The petitioners did not challenge the finality of the said orders. Consequently, the lands vested in the Government, and the petitioners are estopped from asserting tenancy rights. The Joint Collector clarified that Section 38-E results in statutory transfer of ownership by operation of law, while Section 38-A is contractual.
Since the two are mutually exclusive, once rights are acquired under Section 38-E, no certificate can be granted under Section 38-A for the same land. The RDO's findings were thus set aside.
iii) Findings of this Court:
a) Upon a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings, documents, and the legal framework governing protected tenancy under the Tenancy Act, this Court finds that the rights of the petitioners over the lands situated in Survey Nos.51, 52, and 53(part) of Gachibowli Village were not extinguished by the order dated 09.12.1975 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal under the CoAH Act, 1973. Although the LRT's order has attained finality under the Ceiling Act, it cannot override the statutory rights vested in protected tenants under the
119 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Tenancy Act, 1950. This Court is of the view that the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal primarily dealt with the holding of the declarant, M/s. Kastopa Corporation, and the declaration of surplus lands under the Ceiling Act. There is no evidence of any adjudication made therein regarding valid surrender by the petitioners in accordance with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. In fact, the RDO in his detailed enquiry report categorically found that no valid surrender had taken place in respect of Survey Nos. 51, 52, and
53. While surrender proceedings of the year 1965-66 may pertain to other survey numbers like 37, 40, 42, 43, and 47, there is no record of surrender under Section 19 concerning the subject lands. As per the statutory scheme, for a surrender to be valid under Section 19, it must be in writing, voluntarily made, and duly accepted by the Tahsildar. The RDO's report clearly states that no such procedure was followed in respect of Survey Nos.51 to 53. Furthermore, the report acknowledges that the petitioners or their predecessors-in- interest were declared protected tenants under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act in the year 1958 and these entries continue to stand unless lawfully altered through proceedings under the Act. Even though proceedings under the Ceiling Act have concluded and the land admeasuring Ac.137.17 guntas in different survey numbers stood vested in the State, the lands in Survey Nos. 51, 52, and part of 53 remained unaffected, as no valid surrender or relinquishment of 120 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch protected tenancy rights was proved in respect of these lands. The conclusion drawn by the Joint Collector that the petitioners' tenancy rights stood extinguished due to the finality of the LRT's order is not sustainable. It is also relevant to note that under Sections 33 and 104 of the Tenancy Act, read with Section 28 of the CoAH Act, 1973, the Tenancy Act enjoys an overriding effect in respect of matters enumerated under List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Thus, in matters concerning tenancy, including surrender, the Tenancy Act would prevail. A careful reading of Sections 33, 34, and 38-E makes it evident that ownership rights under Section 38-E would vest in the protected tenant on the notified date, even if the tenant was not in physical possession, provided there was no valid surrender under Section 19 and the tenant had not lost status under Sections 32 or 44. In the present cases, there is no proof of such loss or disqualification. Therefore, this Court holds that the tenancy rights of the petitioners over the lands in Survey Nos. 51, 52, and 53 are intact and not extinguished by the LRT proceedings or orders passed under the Ceiling Act. Their rights are traceable independently to the Tenancy Act and are entitled to protection thereunder. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the revision petitioners/ tenants.
121 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
39. Issue No.F) Is it permissible in law to grant of a joint certificate either under Section 38-E or Section 38-A of the Tenancy Act to several persons claiming to be protected tenants?
i) Findings of the RDO:
The RDO held that "there is no prohibition in law to issue of Joint Ownership Certificate U/s 38E of Tenancy Act to Protected tenants and their legal heirs who are the petitioners Sl.Nos.1,3,5,6,12,13 and 20 to 30 herein, duly following the procedure formulated therein".
ii) Findings of the Joint Collector:
The Joint Collector held that "there is no prohibition under the Act for issuance of Joint certificate under section 38-E or under section 38-A in favour of several persons claiming to be protected tenants, provided the requirement of respective provisions are satisfied."
iii) Findings of this Court:
a) The report submitted by the RDO is based on an enquiry conducted in strict compliance with the directions issued in W.P.No.4590 of 1980. In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court had specifically directed the District Collector, Hyderabad, or an officer not below the rank of RDO to conduct an 122 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch enquiry to ascertain the protected tenancy status of the tenants and related issues, including any lawful surrender of tenancy rights.
Pursuant to such directions, the RDO/Deputy Collector conducted enquiry and submitted report dated 27.07.1981. The said report had been accepted in W.P.No.4059 of 1982 and subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.1420 of 1987. No appeal was preferred thereafter, rendering the said findings final and binding on all parties, including the Government. The RDO/Deputy Collector took into consideration the voluminous documentary evidence and concluded that the petitioners/protected tenants and their predecessors were in continuous possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.51 to 53 (part) from the year 1950 as protected tenants and had not surrendered their tenancy rights in terms of Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. The RDO further stated that the notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.183 MA dated 24.03.2000, classifying the lands as residential, cannot retrospectively extinguish or nullify the protected tenancy rights vested under the Tenancy Act. It was further recorded that the reclassification of the lands under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, for improvement of town planning schemes, cannot denude the accrued tenancy rights that were crystallized decades earlier under a special statute intended to confer security of tenure of tenants as agrarian reforms and eventual ownership to cultivating tenants. It is to be seen that even before the issuance of 123 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch notification vide G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.04.2000, the tenants are contesting the cases by filing various cases from the year 1980 onwards and any notification issued subsequently would only operate prospectively and the same cannot be applied retrospectively for pending cases/claims.
b) With respect to the locus standi of respondents, the RDO found them to be third-party purchasers and they have no independent rights. It was held that they are strangers to the proceedings initiated under the Tenancy Act and not entitled to object for issuance of ownership or sale certificates under Sections 38-E or 38-A of the Act to the protected tenants. If the title has been validly transferred in their favour, they are entitled to agitate their claims before the appropriate forum but not under the provisions of Tenancy Act, which would strictly govern the relationship between the landlord and the tenants. The RDO also noted that there is no legal bar for issuance of joint ownership certificates under the provisions of the Tenancy Act to multiple tenants who are jointly cultivating the lands or their legal heirs, provided the requisite statutory conditions are fulfilled.
c) The Government of Hyderabad has enacted "Record of Rights in Land Act", Act No.I of 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) which is applicable to the erstwhile HEH Nizams Dominions and Hyderabad Record of Rights 124 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Land Regulations, 1357 Fasli (1949 AD). Under the provisions of said Regulations, notification was issued by the Government of Hyderabad, Revenue Department under Section 4(1) of Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations, 1358 Fasli for preparation and maintenance of record of rights. The Division Bench of the High Court reported in Mylaram Lachaiah vs. Nafeesunnisa Begum 137, taking into account of the final record prepared under the Hyderabad Land Census Rules, gave a finding that the said final record (Khasra Pahani) as "Record of Rights" and the said Regulations were extended to all the villages of erstwhile State of Hyderabad and the same continued till the formation of State of Andhra Pradesh on 01.11.1976. The Land Census is defined in Rule 2(f) of Land Census Rules, 1954and includes the names of all interested persons so far as they are in actual enjoyment of their interest. Rule 2(e) defines "interested person" as a person who has or who claims to have any interest in land either as a land holder, occupant, mortgagee, assignee or rent, tenant or otherwise. A conjoint reading of 'interested person' and 'Land Census' of the Land Census Rules, it is evident that names of all persons who are in actual enjoyment of their interest whether as a landholder or as tenants are registered holder as per the Khasra Pahani. The analysis of the above would imply that all persons who are in actual enjoyment/possession are entitled for 137 ILR 1972 AP 652 125 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch grant of joint tenancy rights, since their names have been reflected in the Pahanies prepared under the said Regulations. Therefore, there is no interdiction for recognizing joint tenancy rights under the provisions of Tenancy Act.
d) Having regard to the above legal and factual analysis, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the RDO are well- founded, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
40. Issue No.G) Whether the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents 8 to 72 in CRP No.6708/2003 are violative of Section 38-D of the Act and if so, whether the sale deeds are void?
i) Findings of the RDO:
The RDO held that the sale deeds are executed in violation of Section 38-D of Tenancy Act, since the protected tenancy rights were not extinguished by following the procedure. Accordingly, objections raised by respondents were rejected, and they were advised to approach Civil Court, for redressal of their grievance, if necessary.
ii) Findings of the Joint Collector:
The Joint Collector found that the sale deeds were jointly executed by the landholder and the alleged protected tenants. Hence, the tenants had waived their rights under Section 38-D. Therefore, 126 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the sale deeds are not void and the findings recorded by RDO were set aside.
iii) Findings of this Court:
a) As evident from the record, on 17.3.1975, several individuals claiming to be protected tenants filed an objection petition seeking ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act.
b) When a provisional list of protected tenants was prepared under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, several persons claiming tenancy rights filed a petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT) claiming the rights on the subject lands. The LRT even though recorded compromise of the tenants and declarant-Kastopa Corporation and the said compromise is not valid in view of Section 33 of the Tenancy Act. When the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.594 dated 20.04.1979 granting lease over the portion of the subject lands, the tenants filed W.P.No.4590 of 1980, wherein this Court directed to conduct an enquiry by the Collector or any of the Officer not below the rank of RDO. The RDO (Second Taluqdar/Deputy Collector) being the competent authority under Rule 12 of the Tenancy Rules, 1950 is conferred with power to revise the provisional tenancy register, has submitted a report dated 27.07.1981 stating that there is no valid surrender of lands by the Tenants in favour of pattadars/declarant (Kastopa Corporation, vendor of the respondents herein). Thereafter
127 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch W.P.No.4059 of 1982 was filed for declaring the protected tenants in respect of lands in Sy.Nos. Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 53, admeasuring Ac.157-03 guntas situated at Gachibowli Village. The learned Single Judge relying on the RDO report dated 27.07.1981, allowed the said Writ Petition vide order dated 15.07.1987 and directed the respondents therein to grant certificates under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.73.03 gts and permitted the petitioners therein to file applications under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, before the RDO. Challenging the same, the State has filed Writ Appeal No.1420 of 1987, wherein the Division Bench upheld the orders of the learned Single Judge and the report of the RDO dated 27.07.1981. The Division Bench in CRP No.6208 of 2003 and batch vide order dated 25.02.2013 directed the original authority/RDO to decide the validity of the RDO report dated 27.07.1981. Admittedly, pending adjudication of the tenancy rights, Kastopa Corporation disposed of the property in favour of respondents in these revisions/purchasers during the years 1986 to 1989. The Kastopa Corporation/declarant, while disposing the property in favour of alleged purchasers, has not followed the procedure as mandated under Section 38D of the Tenancy Act. The extract of the Tenancy Register of surrender would show that the surrender was not in accordance with procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. The judgments relied upon by the 128 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch learned counsels would emphasize that unless the procedure under Sections 19 and 38D of the Tenancy Act has been followed by the pattadar, the alleged sale deeds does not confer any right, pending adjudication of the lis between the landlord and the tenants.
c) For better appreciation of the above provisions, the summary of relevant case laws are extracted below:
i) In Kotaiah v. Property Assn. of the Baptist Churches (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme observed as follows:
"19. Section 38-D reads:
38-D. Procedure when landholder intends to sell land to a protected tenant.--(1) If the landholder at any time intends to sell the land held by the protected tenant, he shall give a notice in writing of his intention to such protected tenant and offer to sell the land to him. In case the protected tenant intends to purchase the land, he shall intimate in writing his readiness to do so within six months, from the date of the receipt of such notice. If there is any dispute about the reasonable price payable by the protected tenant for the land, the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 38 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
(2) If the protected tenant does not exercise the right of purchase in response to the notice given to him by the landholder under sub-section (1) such protected tenant shall forfeit his right of purchase of the same and the landholder shall be entitled to sell such land to any other person.
On such a purchase by any other person, the protected tenant shall forfeit all his rights in the land save those provided for in Section 41.
22. In sum...,
(i) The protected tenant has a right to become full owner of the lands in his possession. He becomes the owner when the Government issues a notification under Section 38-E. We are told that the Government had issued such a notification on 1-10-1973, relating to the district where the lands in question are situated. It was about three years earlier to termination of the appellants' tenancy by the Association. If the appellants had a right to become owners of the tenanted lands, the question of terminating their tenancy would not arise.
(ii) The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, the Tehsildar either suo motu or on application must hold a summary enquiry, and direct that the 129 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch land be restored to the protected tenant. That is the mandate of Section 38-E and the Explanation thereof.
(iii) The landholder by himself cannot dispossess the protected tenant even if the tenancy is terminated in accordance with the law. The landlord will have to take recourse to Section 32. He must approach the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit.
(iv) Section 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. The alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal effect.
ii) In B.Bal Reddy vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as follows:
"4. The appellants preferred appeals challenging the aforesaid orders dated 27-4-2004 and 13-7-2004. By a common order dated 22-7-2006, the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District allowed these appeals. As regards the locus standi of the appellants to challenge the aforesaid orders, it was held that the appellants were neither the original landholders nor the protected tenants and as such had no locus standi in the matter. Even after recording such finding, the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District proceeded to consider the merits of the matter. It was observed that though Teegala Shivaiah was the protected tenant in respect of the said land, the proceedings granting succession in favour of the respondents were not sustainable as there was no evidence about subsistence of protected tenancy as on the date when the protected tenant died and that since long time had elapsed since his demise, succession could not be determined. It was also held that the Mandal Revenue Officer was not competent to recognise succession to tenancy.
"6. The respondents had also preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 4904 of 2006 against the order dated 22-7-2006 by which order granting restoration was set aside. This revision petition was allowed by the High Court vide its judgment and order [Teegala Narayana Reddy v. B. Bal Reddy, 2010 SCC. OnLine AP 1103] under appeal. The High Court observed that transaction of sale by the original landholders in favour of third parties of agricultural land under the holding of a protected tenant was contrary to the provisions of Section 38-D of the Act and as such the appellate authority had rightly found that the present appellants had no locus standi in the matter. It was further observed that there was no evidence to show that the protected tenant had ever surrendered his protected tenancy or that he was evicted under Section 19 of the Act and as such the protected tenancy would continue despite the death of protected tenant and the rights in that behalf devolved on the successors. Relying on the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sada v. Tehsildar [ AIR 1988 AP 77 : (1987) 2 An LT 749 : 1987 SCC OnLine AP 187] it was held that no limitation or adverse possession could be raised against the protected tenancy. It was further observed that the respondents being legal heirs and lineal blood descendants of
130 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the protected tenant, they were entitled to seek restoration of possession. With this view, the High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition No. 4904 of 2006 and restored the order dated 13-7-2004.
Similar orders were passed restoring orders granting possession in respect of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 447 and 448 of 2007.
"9. Section 38-D of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed when landholder intends to sell the land held by a protected tenant. Accordingly, the land must first be offered by issuing a notice in writing to the protected tenant and it is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right of purchase in accordance with the procedure, that the landholder can sell such land to any other person. The effect of this provision and non- compliance thereof was considered in Kotaiah v. Property Assn. of Baptist by this Court Churches (P) Ltd. (1989) 3 SCC 424] and it was laid down: (SCC pp. 431-32, para 22) "22. (iv) Section 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. The alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal effect."
"10. It is not the case of the appellants that alienations effected by the landholders were in conformity with the aforesaid provision. The appellate authority was therefore right in holding that the present appellants had no locus standi. It, however, erred in considering the merits of the matter despite having rendered such a findings on the issue of locus standi. In our view, all transactions entered into without following the procedure prescribed in section 38-D of the act are without any legal effect as held in kotaiah case.''
iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Sridhar Reddy vs. Mandala Ramulamma's case (supra) held as under:
"31. This Court in Bal Reddy quoted with approval the Full Bench 14 judgment in Sada as well as the earlier judgment of this Court in Kotaiah to hold that protected tenancy could be terminated only in a manner known to law. In the absence of such valid termination of "protected tenancy", the interest of such protected tenant continues to be operative and subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and representatives who could then claim restoration of possession. As laid down in Sada even if the protected tenant had lost possession, without there being valid termination of his status as a protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act.
32. We shall now examine the respective contentions of the parties in view of the law laid down and also the judgment of the High Court in Sada14 which has stood the test of time for last more than 30 years. The scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materially different from that of tenants governed by
131 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Chapter III of the Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at much higher pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of the land, right has been given to him to seek possession later. Therefore, neither Section 19 nor Section 32 forming part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of protected tenant except when the reference is made to the provisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5) which starts with a non obstante clause giving overriding effect to anything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates the Collector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of right made by the protected tenant. This exercise had to be done before the surrender of tenancy rights and not subsequently after many years of alleged surrender on the strength of unequal bargaining power with the tenant who survives on the basis of agricultural activities.
35. The purchasers have relied upon the oral surrender of protected tenancy in the year 1954. Such surrender of oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the Tenancy Act except in the manner which is prescribed under Section 38-E(5) read with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Still further, the protected tenant has a right to seek possession in terms of Section 36 of the Tenancy Act. Even in terms of Section 38-D, if the landholder intends to sell the land which is in possession of a protected tenant, he has to give a notice in writing of his intention to such protected tenant.'
48. The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant of ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners. Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.
49. Now we shall examine the occupancy rights certificate granted to the purchasers in the year 1982. There was no right with the purchaser to claim occupancy rights on the basis of possession since 1-11-1973 upon surrender of protected tenancy rights. If the surrender of protected tenancy rights is not in accordance with the mandate of the statute, the possession from 1-11-1973 would be inconsequential as such possession would not affect the rights of the protected tenant who is entitled to statutory protection. In fact, the grant of Certificate unequivocally transfers ownership rights to the protected tenant.
52. The protected tenant shall be entitled to restoration of possession in terms of Explanation to Section 38-E(1) read with Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar to ensure that the possession is delivered to the protected tenant within 3 months.
132 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
iv) In the case of A. Narasimha vs. A. Krishna (supra), it was observed as follows:
18. So far as the first contention is concerned, it needs to be noted that the rights of a protected tenant can, in no way, be defeated, except with his participation, and by adherence to the relevant provisions of law. Two recognized modes of termination of tenancy are: by surrender under Section 19, and, purchase of the land, by the protected tenant, himself.
Sale of the land of any land covered by protected tenancy by a landholder is clearly prohibited under Section 38-D [See Kotaiah v. Property Association of the Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., (1989) 3 SCC 424 : AIR 1989 SC 1753], Nobody pleaded that there was any surrender of tenancy. Hence, it is not necessary to deal with that aspect.
20. The sale could certainly have been objected to, by the protected tenant or his legal representatives, since the sale, in favour of 3rd parties of a land covered by protected tenancy, is prohibited under Section 38-D. However, once the protected tenant himself mooted the proposal for sale, paid the consideration and had obtained the sale deed in favour of one his sons, totally different consequences will ensure. Veera Mallaiah was alive till 1969, i.e. for a period of 17 years after the sale. Since the land continued to be under the possession and enjoyment of their own family, and the sale was at his instance, he did not object to the same. The occasion to examine the impact of non-observance of the procedure prescribed under sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 38, read with Section 38-A of the Act does not arise, since the sale was not in favour of the tenant himself, but in the name of his son and nominee.
23. The possession of the land held by a protected tenant, or his legal representative, is required to be restored, irrespective of the time gap between the date of dispossession and date of application under Section
32. However, if the possession is enjoyed by a third party, as of right, with the acquiescence and approval of a protected tenant, or his successors, such restoration is impermissible. It is not as if the principle of estoppel and acquiescence are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. If a protected tenant himself inducts a 3rd party into possession of the property, or, is a party to a transaction, directly or indirectly, for such transfers, he cannot turn around and fall back on Section.
24. If such a course of action is permissible, the whole object of the Act becomes defeated and becomes a tool in the hands of indiscriminate persons, to take innocent purchasers for a ride. Once it had emerged that the sale of the land by the landholder in the year 1952 took place at the instance of the protected tenant, himself, and the purchaser is none other than the son of the protected tenant, the land ceases to possess any characteristics of tenancy. The sale of the land in favour of respondents 6 and 7, with the knowledge and approval of the petitioner disables him to seek any remedy under Section 32.
133 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
v) In the case of Raj Kishan Pershad and others vs. Joint Collector, R.R.District and others (supra), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, observed as follows:
"4. The Tenancy Tribunal after taking into consideration the tenancy record if available and after holding summary enquiry in respect of the lands allegedly held by protected tenants shall prepare a provisional list in Form-I showing the names of the protected tenants to whom the land is deemed to have been transferred under Section 38-E (see Rule 4(1). After preparation of the provisional list in Form-I, the Tenancy Tribunal shall issue notice inviting objections within 15 days from the date of publication by causing the provisional list affixed on the notice board of the village Chavidi or other conspicuous place in the village. The proceedings upto the publication of provisional list is the first stage. The second stage is as per Rule 4(3). The Tribunal after hearing the objections if any from a landlord, a land holder or a rival protected tenant or any other interested person and making further enquiry as is necessary may with or without modifications publish a final list which shall be affixed on the notice board of village Chavidi or other conspicuous place. The final list of protected tenants prepared and published under Rule 4(3) is the basis for issuing a certificate under Section 38-E(2) which is the conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of certificate. In this context it Is also necessary to mention that Section 2(a), 2(c), Section 5, Section 34 and Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act contain sufficient guidelines as to the nature of the enquiry at the stage of preparation of provisional list as well as the final list under Rule 4 of the Tenancy Rules. The Tenancy Tribunal shall have to take into consideration the relevant factors as per the Tenancy Act while preparing the final list of protected tenants for the purpose of issuing of certificate under Section 38-E(2).
5. In the present case, the Tenancy Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein prepared a provisional list under Rule 4(1) and (2) and published the same on 10-1-1975. In the meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereafter called 'the Land Reforms Act') came into force with effect from 1-1-1975. The Act prohibits any person from holding agricultural land in excess of one standard holding as defined under Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act. As late Narayana Prasad, the grandfather of the petitioners was owner of more than Ac.350-00 agricultural land in Medchal, Hari Kishan Prasad, father of petitioners filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal, which is distinct from the Tenancy Tribunal under the Tenancy Act initiated proceedings under Section 9 read with Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (hereafter referred as 'Land Reforms Rules'). Rule 4 of the Land Reforms Rules contemplates verification by Tahsildar and publication of the declaration made by the declarant.
7. In the meanwhile, after causing verification as required under Rule 4 of the Land Reforms Rules, the Land Reforms Tribunal by order dated 20-
134 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 10-1976 determined the total extent of holding for the purpose of Land Reforms Act. Before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Raj Hari Kishan Prasad allegedly gave a statement stating that he has no objection for grant of pattas to the protected tenants under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act except to two tenants. The total extent of the land in as many as 16 distinct survey numbers came to Acs. 174-09. As late Hari Kishan Prasad objected to granting pattas in respect of land covered by Sy. Nos. 858 and 859 in favour of Jeedimarla Eraiah and Kaiki Lingaiah admeasuring an extent of Acs.23-13, upholding such objection, the Land Reforms Tribunal determined Acs. 150-96 as being in the holding of protected tenants and also observed that in respect of the land in the survey numbers mentioned, pattas were granted to protected tenants under Section 38-E(2). After deleting Acs.150-96 which was found to be in the possession of protected tenants, the Land Reforms Tribunal, apportioned Ac. 102-35 cents each equal to 2.0595 standard holdings to two sons of late Narayana Prasad, and having regard to the two major sons of Hari Kishan Prasad concluded that the land in the holding of Hari Kishan Prasad is not in excess of ceiling area as on 1-1-1975. This order has become final and no material is placed either before the Tenancy Tribunal or Tenancy Appellate Authority to show that any appeal was filed against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 20-10-1976 under Section 20 of the Land Reforms Act. Be it noted that if the land in possession of protected tenants is not excluded Hari Kishan Prasad would be holding in excess of the ceiling area.
22. Coming to the case on hand, a reading of the order dated 20-10-1976 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal shows that it deleted/excluded an extent of Ac, 150-96 from the holding of Hari Kishan Prasad, the father of the petitioners on the strength of the statement made by the declarant that an extent of Ac. 174-09 is in possession of the tenants and that he has no objection for grant of pattas to protected tenants under Section 38- E except for two persons. The said order having become final, the father of the petitioners or the petitioners claiming through him are not entitled to go back and contest the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal. In fact, in a case where the Land Reforms Tribunal determined the holding of a declarant by giving the benefit of exclusion/deletion of the land in possession of the protected tenants, there would be no necessity again to conduct enquiry either under Rule 4(1) or Rule 4(3) of the Tenancy Rules for preparation of final list of the protected tenants. In such a case, the Tenancy Tribunal can even straight away issue certificates to the protected tenants under Section 38-E (2) of the Tenancy Act.
23. Sri P.M. Gopal Rao, learned Counsel for the protected tenants submits that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal and that the petitioners are estopped from taking a stand contrary to the stand taken by their predecessor-in-title before the Land Reforms Tribunal. That the doctrine of res judicata applies to proceedings under Land Reforms Legislation and the doctrine of estoppel applied to the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal is well settled legal position (see V.S. Charati v. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar, MANU/SC/0732/1998 : AIR1999SC1488 ). Therefore, it is not necessary to elaborately deal with the case law touching upon the subject.
135 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
24. It is, however, necessary to refer to Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil, MANU/SC/0329/1995 : [1995]2SCR133 , in which the effect of proceedings under the Land Reforms Legislation and the proceedings under the Tenancy Act was considered by the Supreme Court. In that case the appellant was a tenant claiming rights under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. His application under Section 32-G of the said Act before the Tenancy Tribunal praying to determine the price to be paid to the land owners for the purchase of Ac.8-26 guntas was rejected on the ground that the tenant was already holding land in excess of ceiling limit. The order of the Tenancy Tribunal was reversed by the Bombay High Court. Before the Supreme Court, there was a claim on behalf of the minor son of the tenant to an extent of Ac.7-34 guntas and the claim of the tenant's brother in whose favour there was an alleged partition under which the brother was given the same land. Reliance was placed on the statement made by the land owner before the Tenancy Tribunal as well as the documentary evidence in support of partition. The Supreme Court accepted the oral evidence of the land owner before the Tenancy Tribunal as conclusive and held that if the land which fell to the share of the brother of the tenant is excluded, the latter would be within the ceiling area entitled to purchase the land from the land owners as claimed. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court was confirmed. The facts before the Supreme Court in that case disclose that the statement made by the land owner before the Tenancy Tribunal should be given due weight while determining the rival rights of the owner and the tenant.
25. Applying the principle in Digambar Adhar case (supra) it be almost held that the Land Reforms tribunal while determining the holding of late Hari Kishan Prasad relied on the factum of an extent of Acs. 150-96 being in possession of the protected tenants and to that extent gave benefit to the declarant. A declarant who makes a statement and gets benefit out of such statement in getting excluded that land from his holding would not be permitted to turn around at a later stage; in this case at the stage of issue of ownership certificate to the protected tenant to resile from the statement made before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The same would amount to fraud on public administration.
27. Having given a statement before the Land Reforms Tribunal that about 150 acres of land is in possession of protected tenants, who are entitled to ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the petitioner's father or the petitioners cannot turn around before the Tenancy Tribunal and object issue of ownership certificates to the protected tenants. Obviously Raj Hari Kishan Prasad played deceit on public authorities (Land Reforms Tribunal) and he cannot be heard to say at a later point of time that the tenants are not entitled to ownership certificates under the Tenancy Act.
28. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made his arguments on 30-1- 2001 and 13-2-2001. The learned senior Counsel on instructions made a submission that the alleged protected tenants filed statements before the Tenancy Tribunal to the effect that they are not protected tenants and that late Hari Kishan Prasad filed statement before the Special Tahsildar at the time of enquiry under Rule 5 of the Land Reforms Rules denying the rights of any alleged protected tenants. This Court gave time to the 136 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch petitioners to file additional affidavit much in advance so that the learned Counsel for the respondents can file their counters to those allegations. Today, when the case commenced to enable Sri P.M. Gopal Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, to sum up his submissions, the petitioner's Counsel placed copies of the alleged affidavit and alleged statements along with an affidavit across the Bar. Having regard to the legal submissions made and determined by this Court as well as the fact that at the stage of revision the petitioners have chosen to come forward to present these documents, this Court refused permission to the petitioners' Counsel to file the affidavit. Likewise, though Mr. P.M. Gopal Rao submits that the petitioners illegally sold away all the Ac.350-00 of land, which was originally owned by late Raj Narayana Prasad, for the same reasons, this Court refused permission to the parties to bring all these circumstances on record."
d) From the above decisions, it is clear that Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act imposes a statutory embargo on the landholder from alienating tenanted land to anyone other than the protected tenant. The right of first purchase is vested exclusively in the protected tenant, and any alienation contrary to this mandate is void and unenforceable in law. Consequently, any interest created in favour of third parties prior to the exercise of the protected tenants' statutory rights under Section 38-D cannot override or extinguish such tenancy rights. In the instant cases, the sale deeds executed by M/s.Kastopa Corporation in favour of the respondents during the pendency of tenancy proceedings and prior to the conclusion of ownership rights under Section 38-E/38-A were in violation of Section 38-D. The purchasers thus lacked the legal stand to assert any claim or title over the lands so conveyed, since such transfers were contrary to the statutory protection afforded to the tenants. The tenancy rights, even after the demise of the protected tenant, devolve upon their legal heirs and remain operative until extinguished in 137 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch accordance with law. Mere physical occupation or title claims by third parties, either prior to or post such grant, are not legally sustainable unless the surrender of tenancy rights has been validly effected under Section 19 of the Act. Furthermore, any third-party rights created pending final adjudication of tenancy claims cannot defeat the claim of a protected tenant unless there is a clear case of consent, waiver, or estoppel. The law is settled that protected tenants' rights are not defeated by delay alone, and the mere passage of time does not extinguish them. Where landholders have consciously excluded certain lands from ceiling declarations, they are estopped from later denying the rights of protected tenants. The issuance of certificates under Section 38-E/38-A may validly follow even without fresh enquiry if the claim of protected tenancy was earlier admitted or acknowledged, including for the purpose of exclusion under land ceiling laws. These legal propositions reinforce the conclusion that any sale or creation of interest in favour of respondents during pendency of tenancy adjudication proceedings and before the issuance of certificates under Section 38-E, is not binding on the protected tenants or their successors. Therefore, such sale deeds have no overriding effect on the tenancy rights of the petitioners, which stood protected under law.
138 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
41. This Court has carefully considered the material placed on record, the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, and the legal framework governing the rights of protected tenants under the Tenancy Act. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioners were claiming rights under Section 38-E/38-A of the Tenancy Act over an extent of Acs.36.25 gts in Survey Nos.51, 52, and 53 (part) situated at Gachibowli Village. These lands have consistently been recorded as agricultural in nature, and the protected tenancy rights claimed over them stood crystallized long before Government Orders were issued under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, seeking to alter the land use or reclassify the region. In W.P.No.4590 of 1980, this Court categorically recognized the existence of protected tenants and directed a fact-finding exercise through the District Collector or an officer not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)/Deputy Collector. Pursuant to the said direction, the RDO submitted a report dated 27.07.1981 confirming the tenancy claims. The authenticity of the report was not disputed before the Division Bench and the same has attained finality and it cannot be discarded, particularly when it was never challenged by the declarant M/s. Kastopa Corporation, or the subsequent purchasers. The RDO, in his subsequent order dated 15.10.2013, thoroughly examined the certified extracts of Tenancy Register and report dated 27.07.1981 and concluded that the petitioners were entitled to be treated as protected tenants eligible for 139 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch grant of certificates under Section 38-E/38-A. However, the Joint Collector, vide impugned order dated 24.09.2016, reversed the RDO's conclusions.
42. Besides the above, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that impugned order of the Joint Collector is biased and mala fide stating that the matters were heard and reserved on 17.09.2016 and there was no date on which the impugned order was pronounced and the same was interpolated into note files. Admittedly as on the date of passing of impugned order i.e, on 24.09.2016 (alleged to have been passed in the Open Court), the Joint Collector was on leave for 13 days for the period from 24.09.2016 to 06.10.2016 (both days inclusive) vide G.O.Rt.No.2079 dated 20.09.2016 and the certified copy of the order was dispatched on 18.10.2016. Whereas the respondents contended that Mr. Rajat Kumar Saini, IAS, Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, handed over the charge of his post to Ms. Amrapali Kata, IAS, Joint Collector- II, Ranga Reddy District on 26.09.2016 AN vide Lr.No.A1/3992/2015 dated 26.09.2016 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District does not suffer from the legal infirmities.
43. This Court has carefully considered the entire record of the Joint Collector-I/Appellate Authority. No cause list is placed on 140 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch record to show that the impugned order was pronounced in the Open Court on 24.09.2016. The relevant dates of proceedings from the note File No.F2/5408/2013 on the file of Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, are reproduced hereunder:
141 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
44. From the above note file, it is evident that the impugned order was passed at the time when the Joint Collector was officially on leave, which raises serious doubt regarding the manner of disposal and the procedural propriety of the order-making process.
45. The Division Bench while disposing of CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch specifically directed the RDO to examine the claims of tenancy rights over the lands in Sy.Nos.51, 52, and 53(Part) to an extent of Ac.36.25 gts and the said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No.3054 of 2006 and batch. Thus, the jurisdiction of the RDO was confined strictly to an extent of Ac.36.25 gts in compliance with the orders of the Division Bench. However, the record discloses that instead of confining his examination to the said extent, the RDO held that the tenants were entitled to Ac.42.24 gts. Once the orders of the Division Bench stood confirmed, thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the RDO to Ac.36.25 gts, the RDO had no authority to grant tenancy rights beyond that extent. The Joint Collector, sitting in appeal, also failed to examine this vital issue. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Tenancy Act, is empowered to pass orders consistent with the Act, whether by way of confirmation, rescission, or modification of the order under appeal or revision, as appears to be just and by virtue of the powers vested under sub-section (2) of 142 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Section 89, this Court is competent to modify the order of the RDO dated 15.10.2013.
46. In the absence of cogent or unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, and in the light of admitted failure to comply with the procedure under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act concerning surrender of tenancy rights, this Court finds that the certified entries in the Tenancy Register, coupled with the RDO's report dated 27.07.1981, are conclusive of the fact that the revision petitioners continued to be in possession as protected tenants. The record further indicates that these lands remained classified as agricultural lands as per the entries maintained under the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli, made applicable across the State vide Government Notifications dated 07.10.1953 and 24.08.1955, mandated the preparation and finalization of Record of Rights for each village. Notification No.53 dated 24.08.1955 specifically included all lands covered by the Tenancy Act, 1950. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, the entries in Columns 1 to 19 of the Pahani Patrika are Record of Rights. These statutory records establish the tenancy rights of the revision petitioners. The contention that tenancy rights were surrendered in the year 1960, specifically under File Nos.A3/10805/64, A3/3749/65, and A4/2556/66, is unfounded, as 143 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch those proceedings relate only to the lands held by Lingamma. By the year 1958, Lingamma had already divested her rights by executing registered sale deeds in favour of Ilyas Burni, and any surrender made thereafter has no relevance.
47. Further, Mr. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.47 in W.P.No.3860 of 2008 has produced the copy of ULC Proceedings dated 08.11.1996 passed in File No.F1/2645/76 by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, and the same is reproduced below:
(Contd...) 144 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 145 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 146 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch 147 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
48. Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel who had earlier represented Kastopa Corporation in the proceedings before the ULC Authority, is now appearing for the respondents/plot owners in these revisions. The stand he presently took in these cases is inconsistent with the stand taken by him before the ULC Authority. He now disputes the very existence of tenants over the subject lands, despite the entries recorded in the tenancy register prepared under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act. Having regard to the submissions made by the declarant as well as the learned counsel, it can be safely held that any alleged compromise or alienation of the lands prior to the vesting date, particularly if done in violation of Section 33 of the Tenancy Act, is invalid. Likewise, any sale deeds executed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 38-E or Section 19 of the Tenancy Act are void ab initio.
49. Section 37A of Tenancy Act was inserted vide Amendment Act No.III of 1956, dated 12.03.1956 conferring the rights on the tenants. As such, any compromise or any alienation prior to the vesting date are deemed to be in violation of Section 33 of the Act and the same are void.
50. The subsequent G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 24.03.2000 issued under the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, notifying the lands as falling under "residential use" zone, has no effect on the protected 148 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch tenancy rights which had already vested. Section 104 of the Tenancy Act has overriding effect over all other enactments. Unless there is a notification under Section 102(e) of the Tenancy Act, which is absent in this case, the applicability of the Tenancy Act continues. The doctrine of lis pendens mandates that rights must be adjudicated under the legal regime prevailing as on the date of commencement of litigation, and subsequent enactments cannot defeat vested rights. Furthermore, as held in Mir Sardar Ali v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Kesara's case (supra), mere inclusion of agricultural lands within municipal limits or reclassification under other enactments cannot extinguish the tenancy rights unless specific statutory notifications are issued under the Tenancy Act. Similarly, in the case of Kotaiah v. Property Assn. of the Baptist Churches (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a protected tenant acquires ownership upon issuance of notification under Section 38-E and cannot be dispossessed illegally. It is settled law that when a person is disputing the status of another person as that of the protected tenant or deemed protected tenant, the former is required to file necessary application in that regard and invite an order of the authority on the dispute regarding the status of tenancy in favour of another person. Admittedly, in the sale deeds said to have been executed in favour of respondents by the vendors (Kastopa Corporation and the tenants), it was stated that there are protected tenants. Further, the vendor i.e, 149 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Kastopa Corporation also in written arguments admitted that there are protected tenancy rights and the nature of land is agricultural land and prayed to allow the revision petitions filed by the tenants (As per the Counter affidavit filed by M/s.Kastopa Corporation viz., Respondent No.39 in CRP No.5279/2016). The alleged sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents were denied by the petitioners stating that same are fraudulent documents. In the circumstances in absence of any order of the competent authority regarding denying the right of protected tenant in relation to the subject lands by filing appropriate application, no fault can be found in declaring the petitioners as entitled for certificates under Section 38E/38-A.
51. The claim that the purchasers under various sale deeds acquired valid title is equally untenable. The sale deeds executed by individuals such as Gadda Balaiah as alleged GPA holder were not supported by succession certificates issued by the competent authorities under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the same were executed during the pendency of tenancy litigation, and are thus hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. No proof of conversion under the NALA Act or permission from the District Collector under Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli is placed on record. Mere payment of development charges or submission of layout plans to municipal 150 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch authorities does not amount to conversion of the land use or extinguish tenancy rights.
52. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned common order dated 24.09.2016 passed in Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch by the Joint Collector/Appellate Authority, is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.10.2013 passed in Proceedings No.G/2690/2013 by the RDO is required to be modified.
53. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition Nos.5279, 5570, 5631, 5632, 5633, 5634, 5635, 5665, 5666, 5667, 5668, 5680, 5681, 5683, 5686, 5731, 5732, 5858, 6164, 6461, 6479, 6503, 6504 of 2016; 6, 210, 219, 377, 998, 999, 1070, 1071, 1188, 1588, 1882, 1938, 1951, 2046, 2437 and 3160 of 2017 are allowed. The impugned common order dated 24.09.2016 passed in Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District is set aside. The order dated 15.10.2013 passed in Proceedings No.G/2690/2013 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, is modified confining the tenancy rights under Section 38E/38A of Tenancy Act, to an extent of Ac.36.25 gts in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53(part) of Gachibowli Village and the tenants mentioned in the provisional list prepared under Section 4(1) of the Tenancy Act (as stated in the affidavit dated 14.02.1988 filed by the District Collector, 151 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Ranga Reddy District in W.A.No.1428 of 1987 - copy of the same annexed as material papers to the paper book filed in C.R.P.No.1588 of 2017) and their legal heirs/successors-in-interest are entitled for ownership rights. The observations made in these revisions will not come in the way of the rights of the parties in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 53(part) of Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal.
54. W.P.No.11157 of 2019: The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.20gts in Sy.No.53 of Gachibowli Village vide document No.2888/2003 dated 10.03.2003 from the tenant, who obtained sale certificate dated 28.04.2001 in Ref.No.G/3640/96 under Section 38A of Tenancy Act. It is stated that aggrieved by the common order dated 07.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CRP Nos.6708 and 1200 of 2003, the appeals vide Civil Appeal No.3054/2006 and batch was filed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.12.2010 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Division Bench of this Court. The case of the petitioner is that even before the matter is being remanded, he purchased the said property under valid document and therefore, his right and title is intact in view of issuance of sale certificate under Section 38A of Tenancy Act and his case is squarely covered by the decision of 152 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch Hon'ble Apex Court in Tanu Ram Bora vs. Promod Ch. Das 138 and prayed for allowing the writ petition in terms of CRP No.5279 of 2016 and batch.
55. This Court finds that the RDO, as the competent authority under the Tenancy Act, rightly passed the order dated 15.10.2013 concluding that the petitioners are entitled to certificates under Sections 38-E/38-A and that no valid surrender had taken place under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. However, the Joint Collector/ Appellate Authority, erred in setting aside the RDO's order. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Joint Collector is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.11157 of 2019 is allowed in terms of the orders passed in CRP No.5279 of 2016 and batch.
56. W.P.No.6759 of 2017: This Writ Petition is filed by one of the tenants seeking to declare the inaction on the part of GHMC officials in removing the illegal structures made by the unofficial respondents inspite of issuance of notice No.2702/TPS/C-11/WZ/GHMC/2017 as illegal.
57. Since the petitioner has remedies available under the Tenancy Act for securing possession, including the dwelling units, he is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law. The GHMC is directed not to entertain any applications seeking permissions over 138 (2019) 4 SCC 173 153 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch the subject lands in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village and unauthorised constructions, if any found, shall be removed by following due process of law and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures 139 and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others 140. With the above observations, Writ Petition No.6759 of 2017 is disposed of.
58. W.P.No.3860 of 2008: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the exemption orders issued by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1816 dated 18.10.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.2183 dated 27.12.2005 as well as the building plan approvals granted by the Vice Chairman, HUDA (CDA), Hyderabad vide Lr.No.13092/BP/CDA/2006 dated 15.05.2007, and the multi-storied complex plan sanctioned by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Serilingampally, GHMC vide proceedings No.G/353/BP/2611/2007 dated 19.05.2007, as illegal and to set aside same stating that respondent Nos.12 to 33 have no right to alienate any portion of the land in Survey Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 53 (part) of Gachibowli Village; to direct the respondents 10 and 11 to stop constructions on the disputed land; to declare the General Power of Attorney executed by 139 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 140 Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 154 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch respondents 13 to 31 in favour of P. Venugopal Reddy as fraudulent, along with sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.2887/2003 to 2900/2003 dated 10.03.2003, Doc.Nos.4646/2001, 4647/2001 & 4648/2001 dated 27.06.2001, Doc.No.675/2005 dated 29.08.2003, Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA Doc.Nos.4513/2006 dated 22.06.2001, 10536/2006 dated 08.05.2005, Development-cum-GPA Doc.Nos.8355/2006 dated 10.04.2006 and 4136/2006 dated 20.02.2006; and to declare all subsequent sale transactions in Survey No.46 of Gachibowli Village as null and void.
59. Pending adjudication of the claims in this writ petition, the dispute arising over the subject lands were remanded to this Court by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3054 of 2006 and batch vide order dated 07.12.2010 and on remand, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch vide common order dated 25.02.2013, observed in Para 61 as follows:
"61. On the analysis above, we hold on issue No.5 framed by the Supreme Court that lands covered by protected tenancy rights (though liable to be excluded from the holding of Kastopa under the Ceiling Act first in view of S. 13, but were not so excluded in 1975) cannot be excluded subsequently by authorities under the Ceiling Act, at the instance of protected tenants or the landholder. We hold on issue No. 7 that surplus land to an extent of Ac. 137.17 gts in Sy. Nos. 35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 of Gachibowli village had irrevocably vested in the State under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act and any transaction by way of sale or otherwise in respect of the said land by the alleged protected tenants and the pattedars is void ab initio, of no legal effect or consequence and inoperative. We also hold on issue No.8 that Ceiling proceedings had attained finality with the dismissal of C.R.P.S.R. No. 24698 of 1976 on 28-04-1976 and the same could not be reopened in or qua writ proceedings or in collateral proceedings."
155 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch The aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP (Civil) Nos.17386-17388 of 2013 and SLP (C) No.24254/2016. The SLP (Civil) Nos.17386-17388 of 2013 was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2013, wherein it was observed as follows:
"Heard.
Permission to file the special leave petitions is granted.
We see no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
We, however, make it clear that if anyone out of the parties is aggrieved of the final order which the RDO may pass, pursuant to the remand order passed by the High Court, he/she will be free to seek such redress as may be otherwise available against any such order in law."
60. Whereas, S.L.P(C) No.24254/2016 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.12.2016. In view of the same, the cause of action in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication as the present cases are confined to deal with lands admeasuring Ac.36.25 gts in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53(part) of Gachibowli Village alone. Sofaras the other relief regarding cancellation of General Power of Attorney and to declare all subsequent sale transactions in Sy.No.46 of Gachibowli Village as null and void is concerned, no relief can be granted by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.3860 of 2008 is dismissed.
156 CVBR,J CRP No.5279/2016 & Batch
61. In the result, Civil Revision Petition Nos.5279, 5570, 5631, 5632, 5633, 5634, 5635, 5665, 5666, 5667, 5668, 5680, 5681, 5683, 5686, 5731, 5732, 5858, 6164, 6461, 6479, 6503, 6504 of 2016; 6, 210, 219, 377, 998, 999, 1070, 1071, 1188, 1588, 1882, 1938, 1951, 2046, 2437 and 3160 of 2017 are allowed; W.P.No.11157 of 2019 is allowed; W.P.No.6759 of 2017 is disposed of and W.P.No.3860 of 2008 is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these cases shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 06.10.2025 Note:
The record of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in File No.G/2690/2013 and the record of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District in File Nos.F2/5408/2013, F2/5409/2013, F2/6066/2013, F2/954/2016, F2/6071/2013, F2/5886/2013, F2/6067/2013, F2/6068/2013, F2/6069/2013, F2/5885/2013, F2/5884/2013, are returned to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, today.
(b/o) scs