Telangana High Court
Anil Kedia vs The Joint Collector on 8 June, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3006, 3679 and
4115 of 2016
COMMON ORDER:
Since facts of the case and the issue involved in all these Civil Revisions Petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2) C.R.P.Nos.3006 and 3679 of 2016 are filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Tenancy Act"), by the revision petitioners/respondent No.7 and respondent Nos.6 & 9 respectively, challenging the order dated 04.06.2016 passed in Appeal No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar (respondent No.1 herein), wherein the learned Joint Collector has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 23.02.2013 passed in File No.G/6411/2008 by the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (respondent No.2 herein).
3) C.R.P.No.4115 of 2016 is filed under Section 91 of the Tenancy Act, by the revision petitioners/third parties, challenging the order dated 04.06.2016 passed in Appeal No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar (respondent No.1 herein), wherein the learned Joint Collector has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 23.02.2013 passed in File No.G/6411/2008 by the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (respondent No.2 herein). 2
4) The brief facts of the case are that Thallapally Yadaiah, has filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act, before the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, claiming that his father-Thallapally Venkataiah, who was the protected tenant of lands covered by Sy.No.206(old) admeasuring 30-00 Acres corresponding to new Sy.Nos.249 and 251 admeasuring Ac.20-35gts, situated at Farooqnagar Village and Mandal, used to cultivate the lands during his lifetime and after his death, he cultivated those lands. Subsequently, he was forcibly evicted from the said lands. In order to get back the possession, he applied for certified copy of Final Tenancy Register, wherein, the-then Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Farooqnagar, issued a memo stating that T.Venkataiah, had surrendered the Protected Tenancy (PT) rights in the year 1967 vide File No.B5/1174/67 and the name of the Protected Tenant was deleted vide File No.B1/187/89. It is averred that even certified copy of File No.B1/187/89 was denied by an endorsement dated 21.01.1997 stating that file had been destroyed on maturity. Challenging the said endorsement dated 21.01.1997, he preferred an appeal under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, vide File No.F1/3/99, wherein the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, allowed the said appeal on 03.09.2004 and directed the MRO to restore the possession to T.Yadaiah. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2004 passed by the learned Joint Collector, Sri M.Santosh Kumar and others, preferred Civil Revision Petition No.5966 of 2004 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the said CRP was allowed on 12.09.2007 and the matter was remanded to the MRO, Farooqnagar, for fresh disposal. Thereafter, 3 T.Yadaiah filed a petition under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act, before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar vide File No.G/6411/2008 seeking restoration of possession of aforesaid lands. After hearing both sides, the learned Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, rejected the said petition vide order dated 23.02.2013, holding that in the absence of File Nos.B5/1174/67 and B1/187/89, it is difficult to presume anything and that the applicant i.e, T.Yadaiah, did not lead any evidence to prove the location of his father's possession in Sy.Nos.249 and 251 during his lifetime and also after his death.
5) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2013 passed by the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, the legal heirs of Thallapally Yadaiah, had preferred Appeal No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar and the said appeal was allowed by the learned Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, vide order dated 04.06.2016. The operative portion of the said order, reads as follows:
"In view of the above circumstances, the appeal is hereby allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2013 in File No.G/6411/2008 of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar (M) and the matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar (M), with a direction to restore the entries against Sy.No.205 (old) in the Final Tenancy Register and identify exact location of the land covered by PT i.e, appellants herein in Sy.No.206 (old) corresponding new Sy.No.244, 245, 246, 248, 248, 249, 250 and 251 of Farooqnagar (V) & (M) and take appropriate action for restoration of possession of the PT land under section 32(1) of the AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950."
6) Challenging the aforesaid order dated 04.06.2016, the respondent No.7 and respondent Nos.6 & 9 filed C.R.P.Nos.3006 and 3679 of 2016 respectively and the third party purchasers have filed C.R.P.No.4115 of 2016.
4
7) Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 9, Sri M. Amarnath, learned counsel for respondent No.18 and perused the record.
8) Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that revision petitioners herein are the real owners of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that late Thallapally Venkataiah, had surrendered the PT rights in the year 1967 vide File No.B5/1174/67 and the surrender of protected tenancy rights was accepted by the-then Tahsildar in file No.B5/3200567 and the name of the PT was deleted from the Final Tenancy Register vide File No.B1/187/89. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, was justified in rejecting the petition filed by T.Yadaiah vide File No.G/6411/2008 holding that T.Yadaiah, failed to prove his father's possession in respect of the subject lands. But the learned Joint Collector without verifying the relevant records, erroneously passed the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 and directed restoration of entries in the Final Tenancy Register and also possession. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Ponnala Narsing Rao v. Nallolla Panthaiah1 and Bheemathi Dawood vs. Madichetty Rochaiah and others2 and ultimately prayed to allow the revision petitions as prayed for.
1 1998 (9) SCC 183 2 2004(4) ALT 402 5
9) On the other hand, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein would contend that there is no surrender of PT rights by the father of T.Yadaiah in the year 1967. It is submitted that when T.Yadaiah was forcibly evicted from the possession, he applied for certified copy of File No.B1/187/89 and the same was denied by an endorsement dated 21.01.1997 stating that file had been destroyed on maturity. Challenging the said endorsement dated 21.01.1997, appeal No.F1/3/99 was preferred under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act and the said appeal was allowed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar on 03.09.2004, directing the MRO to deliver possession to T.Yadaiah. The impugned order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the learned Joint Collector vide File No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) is legally sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in B.Bal Reddy vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy and others3 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision petitions.
10) Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 9 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision petitions.
11) In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the point for determination in these revision petitions is:
"Whether the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 passed in Appeal No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, is sustainable?"3
(2016) 5 SCC 102 6
12) POINT: Admittedly, one Thallapally Venkataiah was the protected tenant in respect of land covered by Sy.No.206 (old) admeasuring 30-00 Acres situated at Farooqnagar Village and Mandal. The revision petitioners would contend that said T.Venkataiah had surrendered his protected tenancy rights in the year 1967 vide File No.B5/1174/67. Whereas the contention of the respondents 4 to 9 herein is that the said T.Venkataiah did not surrender the protected tenancy rights over the aforementioned lands. Admittedly, the original owner of the disputed land was one M.Sudarshan Rao and late T. Venkataiah was his protected tenant in respect of land in Sy.No.206 (old) admeasuring 30-00 Acres, situated at Farooqnagar Village and Mandal. Having gone through the material available on record, the learned Joint Collector vide impugned order dated 04.06.2016 recorded a finding that the said M.Sudarshan Rao, in the ceiling declaration file Nos.S/341/75, S/345/75 and S/346/75 has got deleted the land covered by Sy.No.206 (old) from his holding vide order dated 13.12.1977 stating that T.Venkataiah, was the protected tenant over the subject lands and the surrender of the land bearing Sy.No.206 (old) alleged to have been made by the original protected tenant Sri T.Venkataiah, was not correct and thus the protected tenancy rights in respect of Sy.No.206(old), are still subsisting and the entries against Sy.No.206(old) be restored to its original position in the P.T Register. Accordingly, the learned Joint Collector was pleased to direct the Tahsildar concerned to restore the possession to the appellants therein i.e, T.Yadaiah S/o. Late T.Venkataiah & others, after the subject land being identified by the Tahsildar. 7
13) Here, it is pertinent to state that in the application dated 31.03.2008 filed by T.Yadaiah S/o.T.Venkataiah, before the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, he did not state when he was dispossessed from the subject lands. Further, the specific case of the revision petitioners herein is that PT rights were surrendered by late T.Venkataiah in respect of the aforementioned lands as per the orders passed in File No.B5/1174/67 and the said order was carried out by the Tahsildar concerned vide File No.B1/187/89. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, vide letter No.F1/04/2013 dated 06.05.2016 had requested the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, to send the file bearing Nos.B5/1174/1967 and B1/187/1989 & Destruction Register pertaining to Farooqnagar Village and Mandal, to find out the genuineness of surrender of PT rights. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar vide letter No.C/1012/2016 dated 12.05.2016 stated that the said files bearing Nos.B5/1174/1967 and B1/187/1989 and Destruction Register are not traceable in his office. It made the learned Joint Collector to disbelieve the contention made on behalf of the respondents 4 to 9 herein that late T.Venkataiah did not surrender his PT rights over the subject lands and the learned Joint Collector had placed reliance over the Land Reforms Tribunal order dated 13.12.1977 and held that there was no surrender of PT rights by late T.Venkataiah. In the order dated 30.09.2004 passed in Tenancy Appeal Case No.F1/3/99 by the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, (Para 1) reflects that vide File No.B1/187/89 dated 03.02.1989, the surrender of protected tenancy rights was accepted by the-then Tahsildar in file No.B5/3200567 and the said entry was rounded off in the final records of the tenancy register in 8 respect of land in Sy.No.206 (old) admeasuring 30-00 Acres situated in Farooqnagar Village and Mandal. The file No.B5/3200567 has not been called for and verified while passing the impugned order by the learned Joint Collector. The said file is also relevant to determine whether there was surrender of PT rights, as contended. The learned Joint Collector while dealing with the subject matter, ought to have called for the application for restoration of possession filed by T.Yadaiah S/o. T.Venkataiah and the entire record of proceedings in Tenancy Appeal Case No.F1/3/99, before passing the impugned order. The learned Joint Collector also ought to have verified whether there was any mischief by M.Sudarshan Rao, in his ceiling declaration that late T.Venkataiah was his protected tenant in respect of land covered by Sy.No.206(old). This aspect also requires thorough examination and a finding is required to be recorded. In the given circumstances, the learned Joint Collector ought not have placed reliance over the order dated 13.12.1977 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. There is every possibility of M.Sudharshan Rao, suppressing the material facts in order to get his land within ceiling limits and defeat the object of the Act. In the subject dispute, there is possibility of parties concerned indulging in misplacement of File Nos.B5/1174/67, B1/187/89 and B5/3200567 in order to benefit the landlord and his successors in interest in collusion with them. If any original record is lost, there is a procedure to reconstruct the same, which is necessary for the determination of the cases of this nature. Whether there is any mischief by any 9 party to the proceedings, the same is required to be identified by examining the records in toto.
14) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon Ponnala Narsing Rao's case(1 supra) and Bheemathi Dawood's case (2 supra), whereas the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 9, relied upon B.Bal Reddy's case (3 supra). As pointed out above, as non-examination of relevant records by the learned Joint Collector concerned while passing the impugned order dated 04.06.2016, is fatal, the decisions relied upon by both sides are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the above cited decisions have no application.
15) For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
16) In the result, C.R.P.Nos.3006, 3679 and 4115 of 2016 are allowed and the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 passed in Appeal No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) by the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, is set aside. The Appeal No.F1/04/2013 (File No.F1/962/2013) is restored to its file and the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, is directed to examine the records relating to the subject matter of the case in toto and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. It is directed that during the pendency of the Appeal No.F1/04/2013 before the Joint Collector, none of the parties shall change the nature, alter, meddle with or alienate the subject lands covered by the appeal No.F1/04/2013, in any manner whatsoever.
10
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revision petitions stands closed. No order as to costs.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 08th June, 2020.
scs