Remanded

S.Butchamma Mominpet R.R.DTAND2 Ors. v. Khaja Been Mominpet R.R.DTAND9 Ors.

Telangana HC7 Jul 2011CRP/2807/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Joint Collector. The Court held that the order restoring possession to a protected tenant was invalid because the revision petitioners, who were in possession under sales deeds, were not given notice or an opportunity to establish their rights.

What did the court decide?

Joint Collector directed to hear objections of revision petitioners and decide within three months after receipt of objections.

S.Butchamma Mominpet R.R.DTAND2 Ors. Vs Khaja Been… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No. 2807 of 2000

¶3

DATE: 07-07-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

S.Butchamma and others

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

Khaja Been and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶11

C.R.P.No. 2807 of 2000

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the effected parties questioning the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 11.08.1997.

¶14

Originally an application was filed by one Suleman Saheb for restoration of the possession of the land in Sy.No.320 to an extent of Ac.12-32 guntas at Mominpet Village. The petitioners thereunder claimed that he was the protected tenant and thereafter notice was issued to the owner and the statements were recorded and considering the evidence on both sides and a plea of surrender by the owner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mominpet found that the petitioner was out of possession since 1953 and, therefore, refused to pass the order for restoration of possession. In appeal, it was pleaded that the appellants are legal heirs of Suleman Saheb and there was no termination of the tenancy as per

¶15

the law and after considering the material, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District found that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mominpet is not legal and possession was ordered to be restored. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy found that the protected tenant was dispossessed from the said land on exchange of the other land. The landlord has not fulfilled the requirement of exchange as provided under Section 39 of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) and the question of oral surrender prior to 1953 does not arise.

¶16

The revision petitioners herein claim that they have purchased the property from the original owners under sale deed dated 09.12.1985 and 30.04.1998 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The cultivation is also reflected in the revenue records. No notice is said to have been given to the revision petitioners and the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District suffers from severe legal infirmities. Accordingly, they sought for permission to file the revision in C.M.P.No.11840 of 2000, which was allowed.

¶17

The points for consideration are:

¶18

1. Whether the revision petitioners herein are to be given an opportunity?

¶19

2. Whether the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District suffers from any infirmity?

¶20

POINTS 1 & 2:

¶21

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners filed copy of the sale deeds and also the pass books and title deeds and tax receipts. According to him, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District dated 15.12.1978 for issue of patta certificate to Suleman Saheb clearly shows that the so-called tenant left possession by 1953 and there was exchange of the property. He has verified the pahanis for the year 1954-55 onwards and did not find that the name of

¶22

the protected tenant is not found and consequently no certificate under Section 38-E of the Act can be given. After passing of this order in 1978, the application was filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mominpet in 1989.

¶23

Evidently, in between this time only the alienations are said to have taken place in favour of the petitioners and possession was also said to have been recorded. Therefore, when restoration of possession is ordered by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, it is just and necessary that a notice should have been given to the persons in possession. It is also to be noted that the Government itself has granted pattedar pass book and a title deed in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, any order passed behind their back effecting their rights will cause prejudice to them.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision reported in the case of CHIPPA RAGHURAMULU v. KATA SHOWRAIAH^[1] , wherein it was held that when there is no material to show that the protected tenant surrendered his rights in writing, it is not valid surrender and grant of certificate is valid.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on a decision reported in the case of PONNALA NARSING RAO v. NALLOLLA PANTAIAH AND OTHERS^[2] , wherein it was held that a tenancy application for restoration of possession must be filed within a reasonable time and in fact this decision was followed in the decision reported in the case of BHEEMATI DAWOOD v. MADICHETTY RACHAIAH AND OTHERS^[3] . Furthermore, in a decision reported in the case of MOTHUKURI RANGA RAO AND ANOTHER v. ROYYALA

¶26

LAXMINARAYANA^[4] also it was held that restoration order of possession by the Joint Collector without notice of appeal and opportunity to persons in possession is improper.

¶27

Therefore, in this case, evidently during the period when the socalled protected tenant or the legal representatives are out of possession, the original owner after a plea of surrender has alienated the property. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, as the rights of the revision petitioners are effected without an opportunity being given to them and an opportunity to establish as to how the right of protected tenant was forfeited the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District cannot be sustained.

¶28

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District is directed to hear the objections of the revision petitioners and dispose of the same. Accordingly, the matter is remanded. The revision petitioners shall file their objections within a period of one month and the Joint Collector shall thereafter on giving notice to the parties decide the same within three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶29

________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶30

07-07-2011 MR

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶32

C.R.P.No. 2807 of 2000

¶33

DATE: 07-07-2011

¶34

¶35