Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The fourth decade - 1970 to 1980 :

In 1973, Kastopa filed a declaration under S. 8 of the Ceiling Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West), declaring its holding of Ac.190-17 gts. in various survey numbers of Gachibowli village. This case was numbered as C.C.No.265/10/75. In the declaration Kastopa did not show that there were any protected tenants in the lands.
On 17.3.1975, an objection petition was filed before the Addl.Revenue Divisional Officer, Taluk west, Hyderabad District (exercising powers under the Ceiling Act as Land Reforms Tribunal) by Gaddi Maisiah, Khanamet Baliah, Manikonda Kondiah, Gadde Lachiah, Shetty Venkiah, Darugupalli Baliah, Legal representatives and sons of Gadde Yettiah (died), Gadde Ramiah (son and legal representative of Bal Lingiah) and Manikonda Pentiah claiming to be the protected tenants of the above lands, requesting grant of ownership rights u/S.38-E of the Tenancy Act in view of S.13 of the Ceiling Act.

It is to be seen that the RDO is not a designated officer under the Tenancy Act, authorized to conduct any enquiry into issues of succession to the deceased protected tenants. Only the Tahsildar may do it qua Rule 14 r/w Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950 u/S.35 and 37. What is the weight to be attached to this report dated 27.7.1981 of the RDO is also therefore an issue which arises for consideration.

In 1981, 24 persons including the four persons mentioned above filed petitions for grant of certificates under S.38-E of the Tenancy Act before the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District claiming that the above named four persons are original protected tenants and the rest, the legal representatives of other deceased protected tenants, seeking ownership certificate under S.38-E of the Tenancy Act on the ground that they are protected tenants. As the Collector, Ranga Reddy District did not pass any orders on their petitions, they filed W.P.No.4059 of 1982 before this Court contending that they are protected tenants to whom a protected tenancy certificate under S.37-A of the Tenancy Act was issued in respect of an extent of Ac.157.03 gts in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42 to 47, 51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village and that they are entitled to the benefits of S.38(1), S.38-E and S.38-B of the Tenancy Act, notwithstanding any proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The petitioners therein specifically contended that though they made a claim in the Writ Affidavit to consider their case under S.38-A and 38-B of the Tenancy Act, they are actually entitled for a direction to consider their case under S.38 apart from relief under S.38-E of the Tenancy Act. They also contended that proceedings under the Ceiling Act had taken place without any notice to them and therefore, they do not bind them. No counter affidavit was filed by the State Government or the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others who were respondents in the Writ Petition.

In the meantime, on 19.8.1996, an application purported to be under S.38-A and 38-B of the Tenancy Act was filed by persons who obtained certificate under S.38-E of the Tenancy Act in respect of Ac.84 in Sy.No.46, 47, 51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village. The applicants contended that they were protected tenants under S.37-A of the Tenancy Act; they had never surrendered their protected tenancy rights under the said Act; they had filed W.P.No.4059 of 1982 in the High Court which was disposed of on 15.7.1987 directing the RDO to issue ownership certificate under S.38-E of the Tenancy Act in respect of Ac.73.03 gts in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of Gachibowli Village; that the High Court had held that the petitioners therein can apply for grant of sale certificate under S.38-A or 38-B of the Tenancy Act, that the said order was confirmed in W.A.No.1420 of 1987; that they were granted ownership certificates under S.38-E of the Tenancy Act pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.4059 of 1982; that the land holders late Ilias Burni and his heirs and successors had already relinquished their rights in respect of the remaining area of Ac.84 and covered by Sy. Nos.46, 47, 51, 52 and 53; and therefore, they should be given sale certificate under S.38-A, 38-B of the Tenancy Act.

27. It is pertinent to note that lands in Sy.Nos.50 to 52 and part of 53 of Gachibowli village were not surrendered by Kastopa to the State and were retained by it towards the 1 (One) Standard Holding which it was entitled to retain under the Ceiling Act.

28. By proceedings dt.25.4.1995, ownership certificates u/s.38-E of the Tenancy Act were issued to certain persons claiming to be protected tenants in respect of Ac.73.03 gts in Sy.No.37,40,42-45 of Gachibowli village, comprising the land surrendered by Kastopa mentioned above. On 1.4.1996, Kastopa filed a petition to reopen and re-compute it's holding on the ground that persons claiming to be protected tenants were granted ownership certificate u/S.38-E. By order dated 28.4.2001 in Proc.G/3640/96 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella , sale certificates under S. 38-A were issued to persons claiming to be protected tenants in respect of Ac.17.20 gts in Sy.No.51, Ac.15.36 gts in Sy.No.52 and Ac.4.01 gts in Sy.No.53 (Paiki) of Gachibowli village. By the order dt.28.4.2001 in C.C.No.W/264/75, the RDO, Chevella acting as the LRT under the Ceiling Act excluded Ac.73.06 gts for which he had granted ownership certificate u/S.38-E of the Tenancy Act; Ac.20-35 gts said to be pote- kharab lands; and Ac.37-17 gts for which he had granted sale certificates u/S.38-A of the Tenancy Act from the holding of the declarant Kastopa and held that Kastopa's holding had become non-surplus. He further directed that the M.R.O., Serilingampally should restore Ac.11-28 gts in S.No.46, Ac.16-10 gts in Sy.No.47/p and Ac.9.03 gts in Sy.No.53 paiki at Gachibowli village to the declarant immediately.