Telangana High Court
Madireddy Santosh And 51 Others vs The Joint Collector And 47 Others on 25 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1160, 1161, 1162, 1163,
1164 AND 567 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Since the parties and lis involved in these revision petitions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. These revision petitions are preferred being aggrieved by the common order dated 31.08.2019 passed in Case Nos.F2/2422/2018, F2/2673/2018, F2/2674/2018, F2/2675/2018 and F2/2676/2018. The respondents in the said cases are the revision petitioners, and the appellants in the said cases are respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, and respondent Nos.5 to 10 in CRP.No.567 of 2020.
3. The brief facts of the cases on hand are that the appellants filed the above mentioned appeals under Section 90 of the Telangana State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'Act 1950') which were remanded back for fresh determination by affording opportunity to the 2 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch parties in CRP.Nos.1552, 1544, 2663, 4444 and 4447 of 2015 that were preferred by the same parties as that of these revision petitions. The case revolves around a dispute over land ownership and tenancy rights concerning old Survey Numbers27/12 and 27/13 which were later assigned new Survey Numbers 135, 136, 131, 132, and 150 in Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellants, who are descendants of one Kandada Yellaiah, contend that the name of their grandfather was the recorded as Protected Tenant of lands bearing old Survey Nos. 27/2 and 27/3, and that Kandada Yellaiah never surrendered his tenancy rights under the provisions of the Act, 1950, and that his name was allegedly removed from the tenancy register without following due process.
4. In addition, that Section 38-E certificates were wrongly granted to other parties by the then Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) without proper verification of the tenancy records or issuing notices to the rightful claimants. The revision petitioners who are respondents therein contended that the appellants and their family members had already been granted Section 38-E certificates for different 3 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch survey numbers and had sold those lands to third parties, contending that the proceedings in question were finalized through a common order dated 23.02.1984, following due process under the relevant Tenancy Correction Rules. Further, that the appellants were aware of the corrections made to the tenancy register and that their current claims are invalid and time-barred. It was emphasized that the disputed lands have since been converted to non- agricultural use, several plots were sold to bona fide purchasers over the past two decades. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Joint Collector dated 31.08.2019 through which the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide File No.3043/78 dated 23.02.1984 was set aside, remanding the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Revision Petition is preferred.
5. Heard Mr. D.Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.1160, 1162, 1163 and 1164 of 2020, Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Prathyusha Bopanna, learned counsel for revision petitioners in CRP.No.567 of 4 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch 2020, and Mr. Avancha H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondents/appellants.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.1160, 1161, 1162, 1163 and 1164 of 2020 submitted that the impugned common orders dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, are arbitrary, illegal, and against the facts on record and circumstances of the case. He firstly contended that the Joint Collector failed to consider the crucial aspect of the respondents' acceptance of corrections and the execution of sale deeds to third parties based on the original orders dated 23.02.1984 and asserted that the same is a vital issue that goes to the root of the matter. Secondly, that the Joint Collector failed to frame the core issues in the case, which is a fundamental requirement of any adjudicatory process, and instead, the Joint Collector relegated the adjudication to the RDO, which is not only unwarranted but also outside the purview of the remand order, and lamented that the same amounts to clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 5
SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
7. The learned senior counsel thirdly, contended that the Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeals on the grounds of delay, laches, and lack of bonafides. He lamented that the respondents had accepted the benefits of the orders dated 23.02.1984 and had executed sale deeds to third parties, and later sought to question the same orders, which is not permissible in law, as such, he divulged that the same is a clear case of approbate and reprobate, where a party cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Fourthly, that the Joint Collector failed to consider the fact that the respondents had submitted to the correction of their tenancy records and had accepted the benefits thereof, due to which they cannot now be permitted to question the same records. Fifthly, that the Joint Collector ought to have been conscious of the fact that the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules, 1956, are framed on 04.02.1956 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 97 r/w sections 35 and 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, basing on which the Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal cases instead of remanding the same to RDO by taking into consideration the concurrent findings 6 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch on the factual aspects arrived at in the earlier round of adjudication reflected in the orders dated 15.02.2005 & 11.07.2014.
8. While advocating that the Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal cases by treating them as vexatious litigation designed to harass the innocent plot owners after reaping the benefits of orders dated 23.02.1984 he prayed this Court to consider the precedents filed thereon, and to set aside the impugned common order by allowing these revision petitions.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioners in CRP.No.567 of 2020 submitted that the impugned common order is flawed for several reasons, contending that the same is contrary to law and facts placed on record. He further contended that the established set of legal principles of law, were ignored, including the principle that "once a protected tenant, always a protected tenant"
does not apply in cases where the rights of tenants have been corrected or waived. He pointed out that the respondents never had any rights in respect of Survey 7 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch No. 27/3, and that the contention of respondents to protected tenancy rights in respect of the said land is bogus and not supported by any evidence. He lamented that the respondents had accepted the corrections made to the tenancy register and had executed sale deeds to third parties, thereby, waiving their rights in respect of the said land and divulged that the respondents had not approached the Court with clean hands. He articulated that the respondents had obtained ownership certificates and sold their land without disclosing the fact, and therefore, their appeals ought have been dismissed at the threshold, as they had suppressed material facts and had made false statements, which amounts to fraud. He contended that the observation made in the impugned common order that the petitioners had not accepted the corrections and executed sale deeds to third parties, is an error apparent to the facts of the cases. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned common order.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents, vehemently, opposed the contentions made by 8 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch respective learned senior counsel for revision petitioners, and contended that the present revisions are not maintainable, as the order of the Joint Collector is merely a remand order and does not decide the rights of the parties. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
11. He divulged that the contention of revision petitioners' that they were not parties to the earlier round of litigation and that they are bonafide purchasers is not the correct law. He contended that the petitioners' contention to have purchased the property pendente lite, and stepping into the shoe of their vendors who have contested the case is false. He placed reliance on the precedents whereunder it was held that a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decision in the suit, and cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against the vendor. He proclaimed that the petitioners have not challenged the judgment rendered by this Court in CRP No.1552 of 2015 and batch dated 02.05.2018, which had decided the issues raised thereof, and on contrary, they are now seeking to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them, which is not permissible under the law.
10
SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch
12. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the petitioners' contention that the judgment rendered in CRP.No.1552 of 2015 and batch dated 02.05.2018 is bad in law, cannot be tenable, as they have not challenged the judgment within the stipulated time, and therefore, the judgment has become final, and also reiterated the principle of law that a party cannot be allowed to challenge a judgment that has become final. Therefore, he concluded his arguments and prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions, stating that the same lacks merits.
13. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that these revision petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, contending that without deciding the issues, the matters were remanded to the RDO. On perusing the impugned common order passed by the Joint Collector, it is seen that the procedure contemplated under the Act, has not been followed while issuing 38(E) Certificate. Further, in the order dated 03.02.1984 passed by the RDO, it is clear that an application was filed by Koheda villagers for correction of 11 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch final record of tenancy and patta certificate was issued under Section 38(E) of the Act. However, it is not known as to who has filed the application for correction of tenancy records, and under what authority of law. Further, in the said order it was held that as per the guidelines issued by the Collector, the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, has conducted local enquiry and prepared the tenancy register as per physical possession of the PTs. No objections were received on the register prepared by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar. Hence, it was observed that the record prepared by the Tahsildar showing the survey number and extent on which they had possession was accepted in to. Therefore, the tenancy records were corrected under Rule 3(2) of the Rules 1956, and a finding was given that tenancy record was changed based on some guidelines issued by the Collector, and record prepared by the Tahsildar, as per the possessions and no mention was made as to the names that have been corrected. Reliance was placed in the order dated 02.05.2018 passed by this Court in CRP.Nos.1552 of 2015 and batch, whereunder, it was observed that once the 12 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch original PT register entries are clear, there could be no change as held in Sada Vs. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad 3.
14. It is settled law that the interest of PT continues to be operable and subsisting so long as protected tenancy is not validly terminated as recognized by law, irrespective of possession of land in question. Further, it is also held by various Courts that even if the PT has lost his possession, without there being valid determination of his status as protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of protections under the Act.
15. Reverting to the facts in the cases on hand, it is noted that the subject lands were converted to non agricultural lands and sold to third parties, resulting in creation of third party interests, and most of the sales on the subject lands took place after the year 1993 i.e., when the litigation on rights over subject lands took place. Thereafter, in view of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2018 in CRP.No.1544 of 2015 and batch, the appeals 3 LAWS(APH) 1962-9-6 13 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch were allowed, remanding back the matters to the RDO for fresh determination by affording opportunity to the parties.
16. That being so, it is clear that the specific contention of revision petitioners is that the certificates under Section 38(E) were issued to villagers of Koheda Village, whereas, in the said certificates, the survey numbers were different and that they are in the possession in the different of survey numbers, as such, some of the PT holders represented before the Tahsildar, for correction of entries and filed affidavits in this regard, basing on which the Collector, directed the Tahsildar to rectify the entries, and admittedly, the respondents herein sold away the property in which they are originally in possession and the same would show that there is acceptance of change of entries in the PT register and the same was result of acting upon the changes made in PT register records. Therefore, the Joint Collector, ought to have verified the records with regard to original tenancy register and subsequent amendments made in the PT register. Further, the Joint Collector ought to have verified the records as to how many PT holders filed application before the concerned authority for rectification of entries 14 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch and without specifying the said aspects, the Joint Collector simply remanded the matters to the RDO, without discussing the material on record.
17. In view of the above discussion and on considering the circumstances of these cases, these revision petitions are disposed of, setting aside the impugned common order dated 31.08.2019 and remanding the matters to the Joint Collector with a direction to dispose of the appeals within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, only after duly verifying the records thoroughly and validly covering all aspects pertaining to original PT register entries, subsequent entries made thereof, and also with regard to the affidavits filed by parties for correction of entries. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 25.03.2025 PT 15 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D COMMON ORDER IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164 AND 567 OF 2020 Date : 25.03.2025 PT