Allowed

M Agro Exports, Guntur Dist v. B Kalyani, R.R.Dist and Others

Telangana HC27 Sept 2022CRP/5333/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Telangana, allowed the Civil Revision Petition, holding that the Joint Collector lacked statutory jurisdiction to entertain the review application under the Tenancy Act. The order further confirmed the Tahsildar's acceptance of surrender and voided the sale transactions predicated on the illegal review.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 01.09.2015 was set aside; orders accepting surrender were confirmed; respondents directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000.

M Agro Exports, Guntur Dist Vs B Kalyani, R.R.Dist and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5333 OF 2015

¶6

Petition filed under Order Section 91 of A.P.(TA) Tenancy and Agrl. Landa Act, against the Order dated. 01 .09.2015 passed in Appeal No. F21132312O13 on the file of the Joint Collector-|, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Order dated.10.06.2004 and 18.10.2004 passed in Case No.A/66812O04 on the file of the Tahasildar (M.R.O.) Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between: I

¶8

M. Agro Exports, represented by Managing Partner Mr. M.R. Seshagiri Rao r S/o. tr/. Nagabhushanam, permanent resident of NidubrolU, Sreeramnagar, D.No. 14-1-1'17, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

¶9

... Petitioner/Respondent No.31

¶10

AND

¶11

1 B. Kalyani, W/o- B. Susheel Kumar, aged about 47 Years, occup. House hold, R/o H.No.9-1-29, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

2 Nalini Kamala Devi, D/o. N. Gnaneshwar Rao, aged About 32 Years, occup.Business, FYo H.No. 8-2-52139, Viratnagar, Champapet, R.R. District.

¶13

A. Naghabhushanam, S/o. late Ramaiah, aged about 57 Years, occup:Business, Rl/o. H.No. 12-13-8291211, Sri Shridhi Sai Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶14

A. Srinivas, S/o. A. Naghabhushanam, aged about 36 Years, occup. Business Rl/o H.No. 12-13-8291211 , Sri Shridhi Sai Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶15

Boinala Susheel Kumar, S/o. B. Anthaiah, aqed about 52 Years; occu:Business R/o. H.No. e-1-2e, champro*,*il.nf"Ti3Xro;r,ii51i,00",,"","

¶16

Vemula Swamy, S/o. late Kistaiah

¶17

Vemula Balraju, S/o late Kistaiah

¶18

Vemula Lingaiah, S/o. Shiva Narasaiah

¶19

Vemula Pentaiah, S/o Shiva Narasaiah 1 0. Vemula Bixapathi, S/o. Pentaiah 11.Vemula Sathaiah, S/o. Pentaiah

¶20

12.Vemula Narsimulu, S/o. Sathaiah

¶21

Uppala Yellaiah, S/o. Rajaiah

¶22

Uppala Yadaiah, S/o.Yellaiah

¶23

1 5. Uppala Narasimha, S/o.Yellaiah

¶24

Uppala Swanry, S/o.Yellaiah

¶25

Uppala Yadagiri, S/o.Mallaiah

¶26

Uppala Narsimha, S/o.Mallaiah

¶27

'19. Uppala Arjun, S/o.Mallaiah

¶28

Uppala Kumar, Sio.Mallaiah

¶29

Uppala Narsimha, S/o.Lachaiah

¶30

22.Bandaru Reguchettu Rajamma, Wo. Mallaiah

¶31

Bandaru Reguchettu Bixapathi, S/o. Balaiah.

¶32

24.Bandaru Reguchettu Shivaiah, S/o. Sailoo

¶33

Bandaru Reguchettu Narsimha, S/o. Sailoo

¶34

1 26. Bandaru Reguchettu Swamy, S/o. Sailoo t

¶35

27.Uppala Narsimha, S/o. late Yadaiah,

¶36

Mohd. lvlohsin. S/o. Yousuf,

¶37

Mohd. Bee, W/o. Yousul,

¶38

Syed Eqbal, S/o. late Syed Hussain,

¶39

31 . Mohd. lssaqu, Sio. tr4ohd. Mohsin

¶40

32 Mohd Yaseen, S/o. Mohd. Mohsin

¶41

Mohd. llias, S/o. Mohd. Mohsin

¶42

Mohd. ljaz, S/o Mohd. Mohsin

¶43

35.Syed Jafer Hussain, S/o. late Syed Hussain, (Respts.No. 28 to 35 are Rl/o H.No. 1-2-735, Elachiguda, LowerTank Bund; Hyderabad.

¶44

Respondents No. 6 to 35 are not necessary Parties but formal parties and hence no notice is necessary to them since respts. 1 to 5 are appellants before the lower tribunal have been contesting.

¶45

Kol;l<onda Laxmrpathr, S/o K. Sattaiah, aged 54 yrs, Rl/o. H.No. 1-1-98/'1,

¶46

Vin&7ak Nagar SBH ATIVI Lane, Kallur, Nizamabad - 503 003.

¶47

lrukulla Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Nagabhushanam, aged 49 yrs, R/o. Plot No 30, Vinayak Nagar, Beside Panchamukha hanuman ltrlandir, Nizamabad Dist.503 001

¶48

Muthyala Bal Reddy, S/o. M. Ralanna, aged 45 yrs, Ryo. 1-1-166/1 , Vijayak Nagar, Sai Krupa NAgar,.Nizamabad = 503 001-

¶49

Leela Krishna l\Iurthy lnnamuri, S/o- Purushottam lnnamuri, aged 60 yrs, Rlo. H.No. 5-6-61, Dwaraka Nagar, Near Teja Hospital, Phulong, Nizamabad Dist.

¶50

KalyankarAshok, S/o. KAlyankarChinnaji, aged44 yrs, R/o. H.No.3-5-7, Husnabad ttilunicipality, Armur District, Nizamabad

¶51

41 . Suddala Srinivas, S/o. S. Kamalaiah, aged 43 yrs, RL/o. 1-6-48/1 5, Ram Nagar, Armor, Nizamabad District.

¶52

Mamidi Rajendar, S/o M. Rajaiah, aged 47 yrs, R/o. H.No. 1-'l-B/1, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad Dist., - 503 001

¶53

43, Padakanti Chandrasekhar, S/o. PAdakanti Nagabhushanam, aged 37 yrs, Rl/o. H.No. 10-11-1451A, Sai Nagar, 1, Varni Road, Nizamabad.

¶54

Moturi Venkatesham, S/o Moturi Topaiah, aged 61 yrs, R/o. H.no. 6-13-60/1 , Namdevwada, Nizamabad

¶55

i t

¶56

Alladi nagesh GLrpta. S/o Alladi Shankaraiah, aged 46 yrs, R/o. 10-9-90, Gajulpet, Nizamabad.

¶57

¶58

(lR 36 tor45 are impleaded as per c o. d|.24.12.2021 in lA No. I of zOf)

¶59

¶60

i l.A. NO:1O F 2015(C RPMP. N O: 6983 OF 20151

¶61

I I I

¶62

¶63

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to suspend the order of the Joint coilector-r, Ranga Reddy District, dated 01 .09.20 1s in F2t1323t2o13 pending disposal of the above Civil Revision petition.

¶64

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRt K. V. SESHAGIRI RAO

¶66

Counsel for the Respondents: K V SESHAGIRI RAO

¶67

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.12, 1g,28: SRI V. V. RAMANA

¶68

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 11, .t3 to 17, 19 to 2l,29to 45: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

¶69

_,--,--------#

¶70

¶71

THE TIONOURABLE Szu JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶72

CIVII, REVISION PETITION NO.5333 OF 2015

¶73

ORDER:

¶74

This revision has been directed against the order dated 01.09.20 15 in Case No.F2l1323120 L3 on the lile of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, rvherein arld n'herebv the orders 10.06.2004 and 18.LO.2OO4 of the Tahsildar, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddy District in case No.A/66812004 were set aside. The Tahsildar bv such orders acr:epted surrender of protected tr:nancv rights in favour of owners of the lands. Subsequentl-y, the respondents No.1 to 5 herein filed an application beforc the Tahsildar, seeking review of orders dated 10.06.2004 ar'rd i8.10.2004. The Tahsildar dismissed the revies' application vide his memo'dated 04.O2.2O13 holding that he has no power of review. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein have liled arL appeal before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District. u'ho lr]' impugnecl order dated 01.09.2O15, reversed th<: ordcrs of l'ahsildar, dated 10.06.2004 and i8.10.2004 incltrding grant of succession.

¶75

¶76

The petitioner herein is respondent No.3 1 , respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are thc appellants :rnd respondents Nos.6 to 35 herein are respondent Nos. 1 to 3O in the appea-l before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District. The iespondent Nos.36 to 45 herein, who are the purchasers from respondent Nos.1 to 5 u,ere themselves impleaded in the present revision.

¶77

¶78

4 . The case of the petitioner is^t hat tl-rc pctitioner compary has purchased larlds admeasurir-rg Ac.2B-39 guntas in Sy.Nos.125, 131, 307, 308, 3l l, 312, 313, 339 and 32'o/3, situated at Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Rarga Reddy District (herein after referred as "subject lands") under registered sale deeds from respondent Nos.28 to 35 herein, who are the legal heirs of original owner i.e., Mohd. Yousuf. Such sales u'ere made b.y successors-in-interest of Mohd.Yousuf after protected tenancy rights were surrendered on 10.06.2004 and t8.06.2004.

¶79

The respondent Nos. I to 5^purchzrsed the subject lands from the legal heirs of the protectccl tenant on the strength of 38-E certificate, vide document Nos.22O4 l2Ooo, 22os/2Qpo, 2206 l2ooo, 2207 l2ooo and

¶80

)

¶81

,F 22OB l2OO{1. Such purchases \rrere made prior to surrender of protected tenancy rights by the legal heirs of protected tenant. The respondent Nos.6 to 27 are the legal heirs of original protected tenant viz., Vemula Si',,a Narsaiah (hereinafter referred to as "protected tenants") and respondents Nos.28 to 35 are the legal heirs of original landlord i.e., Mohd. Yousuf (hereinafter referred to as "original orvners) .

¶82

The <:ase of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is that they purchased the subject lalds from the protected tenarrts for sale consideration on the basis of 3B-E certificate issued prior to surrender of protected tenancy rights. The revision petitioner and the original owners colluded with protected tenants ar)d made them to surrender their rights u,ithout any notice to respondents no. I to 5 u'ho purchased from the protected tenants. After knorving sucll collusion, they Iiled the application for recall of order of acceptance of surrender. The Tahsildar, ',r,ithout proper appreciation of facts and 1aw, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the appeal before the Joint Collector-ll, rvho after appreciating the above bzrckground of the facts, rightly allorved the appeal arld set aside the

¶83

¶84

orders of the Tahsildar accepting the surrender which requires no interlerence.

¶85

¶86

Heard both sides

¶87

B. The facts which are not in dispute are that originally, Mohd. Yousuf was the o\vner ol land admeasuring Ac.28-39 guntas in Sy.Nos.i25, 131, 307, 308, 3ll, 312, 313, 339 and 326 13, situated at Lalgadi Ma-lakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddv District (the subject lands). It is also not in dispute that late Vemula Siva Narsaiah was the protectcd tcnant of tl-re subject lands. Initially, the Tenar-rcy Tribunal, alter enquiry, confirmed the entitlement of protected tenant to get the ownership rights under 38-E certificate through proceedings No.H/4058/74 and later, issued certificate under proceedings No.I/2O /LRE/75, dated 20.05.i975 in favour of Vemula Sattaiah @ Siva Narsaiah for entire extent of subject lands treating that the original landlord was holding more than two farnily holdings.

¶88

The original 0\rner chalienged thc grant of 38-E certificate in favour of protected tenant before the District Revenue Olficer ancl he dismissed the appeal by orders dated 28.02.1977 tn file No.B1/4505/75 confirming^grant

¶89

¶90

¶91

of 38 E certificate in favour of the protected tenant Challenging the same, the original owner fi1ed CRP No.965 of 1977 beftrre this Court claiming that he was not holding more thzur l,u'o family holdings and the protected tenant is not entitlcd for 38-E, certificate. This Court, vide order dated 17.04.1985, allou,ed the revision by setting aside the order of f)istrict Revenue Officer dated 28.02.1977 and remanded t he matter to the District Revenue Officer for fresh cons^{jrleratior-r.} When the matter was not taken up by the District Revenue Officer, the original owner filed W.P.No.4524 of I991 seeking a direction to the District Revenuc C)lficer to take up the appeal at the early stage. This Court., vide order dated O3.04.1991, allowed the Writ Petition dir,:cting thc District Revenue Officer to dispose of the appe:rl.

¶92

In cornpiiance of such direction, the Joint Collector, Rar-rga RcCdy District took up the appeal, and through proceedirrlls B1 111443 190, dated 76.12.1991, aliowed the appeal and set aside the order ol Tenancy Tribuna1 granting ll8 E certilicate and remanded the case to the l'enancr^'l'ribunal lor lrcsh consideration.

¶93

¶94

li. The Tenancy Tribunal, after fresh enquiry, through proceedings dated 03.02.1993 in file No.L/4173/9O, held that the original owner was not holding more than two family holdings in order to grant ownership certificate in favour of the protected tenant and consequently, he held that the protected tenant is not entitled for conferment oi ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangala Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, the Act). The fact remains is that this order of Tenunc.y Tribunal, on remand, was not challenged by the protected tenant or his legal heirs including the subsequent purchasers from the protected tenant i.e., respondent Nos. I to 5 and it attained finality.

¶95

¶96

Subsequently, the original owner filed the application for mutation, ald the Tahsildar, while ordering mutation in the revenue records, had a-lso granted succession to the legal heirs of the protected tenant under Section 4O of the Act without there being any application from the legal heirs of the protected tcnant. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, who by order dated 15.04.2OO2 in file No.DS/2650/2OOl allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tahdilar to the extent of granting successi&^-to the 1egal heirs qf the

,/ //

i--:

protectecl tenant and directed the Tahsildar to consider the grant of sLrccession certificate independentll'. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are aiso pa-rties to the proceedings before the Joint Collector. Later, the lega1 heirs of the protected tenant harc filed application for grant of succession under Section^{.10 ,rf} the Act and the Tahsildar granted succession to them.

¶101

Subsequently, the Tahsildar, through Memo No.B/535112002, dated 05.08.2022, directed re spondent Nos. 1 to 5 to return the title deeds and passbooks, u,l-rich u,ere issued in their favour prior to passing of orders dated 15.04.20012 by the Joint Collector.

¶102

Later', the 1ega1 heirs of the protected tcnants filed applications under Section 19 of the Act for surrender of their tenancy rights. These applications u.ere nurnbered as File No.A/66812OO4. The said applications s'ere accepted b1, the Tahsildar, having satisfied with the volrtnt:uJ nature of the request made by the legai heirs ol' the protected tenants. arLd accordingly, passed orders dated 10.06.2004 and 18. 1A.2OO4 accepting surrender. Being aggrieved by the acccptance of surrender of tenancv rights, rr:spondent Nos.l to 5 filed al appeal before the Joint Collector II,

¶103

¶104

Ranga Reddy District, who by his order dated 20.08.2005 n in file No.F2 /6151 12OO4, dismissed the appca-l, by taking into consideration of the cancellation of 3B-E certificate and finality to such cancellation. He has further held that sale deeds executed by the legal heirs of the protected tenant on the strength of cancelled 38-E certificate were invalid

¶105

While the matter things stood thus, respondent Nos. I to 5 again filed an application before the Tahsiidar for revierv ol the orders dated 10.06.2004 and |8.06.2004, q,hereunder the request of ,the lega1 heirs of the protected tenant for surrender of their rights rvere accepted. Tl-re Tahsildar, vide order dated 04.O2.2013 in file No.B/289512012, dismissed the same holdir.rg that he has no power of review. Aggrieved by the same, rcsponderrt Nos. 1 to 5 filed appeal before the Joint Collcctor-l, Ranga Reddy District, who by impugned order dated O1.09.2015, reversed the orders of Tahsildar, dated 10.06.20O4 and I8.10.2004 including grant of succession. Challengir.rg the said order, the present revision is filed.

¶106

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Joint Collector, without any statuton' support for

f-'

entertaining the review application, has set aside the orders of Tahsildar, who rightly held that there was no review power under the Act. He has lurther submitted that the Joint Collector failed to look into the fact that previously respondent Nos.1 to 5 have liled similar appeal against the acceptance of surrender of tenancy rights, but they were unsuccessful. By suppressing the said fact, respondent Nos.l to 5 again filed the present appea-I ald the Joint Collector, without looking into the background of the facts eurd without there being anv po\,er, allowed the appeal and set aside the even grant of succession which was never under challenge. According to him, the impugned order suffers from illegalitl'

¶111

17 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have purchased subject lands on the strength of 38-E certificate, u hich ri as subsequently cancelled by the Tenancl' Tribunal and cancellation attained finality. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the protected tenant, by supprcssing the cancellation of 38-E certificate. entered into sale transactions u,ith respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the year 2000, s'ithout there being any right to sell the subject lands. Therelore, such sale transactions are uoid ab initio and do r-rot confer anv valid title to -

¶112

¶113

respondent Nos.1 to 5. In the previous proceedings also, the authorities have rightl.y considerecl the issue and rejected the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 5. However, in the subsequent proceedings, such a settled position was reversed by the Joint Collector by' the impugned order, which suffers from illegality

¶114

¶115

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that the Tahsildar did not go into Lhe claim made by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with regard to acquisition of title and possession under the sale deeds executed by the 1ega1 heirs of protected tenant in the 1,s21- 2000 r'vhich is much prior to acceptance of surrender of tenancy rights. The review was sought mainly on the ground that the orders of acceptance of surrenders u,ere result of suppression of true facts and the Tahsildar, without examining the above facts, has dismissed the application for rcvies, but the Joint Collector rightly set aside such ordcr. and hence, the same does not require any interference.

¶116

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 further submitted that the authoritics undcr the Act have inherent power to recail the orders, if thel' suffer from fraud. Therefore, the order of the Tahsildar rr'as rightly set aside

¶117

¶118

6; by the .Jor nt Collector by exercising inherent power, and hence, such order requires no interference by this Court.

¶119

[t is an admitted position that by the time when the sa,1e deeds u,ere executed by the legal heirs of the protected tenant in favour of respondent Nos.l to 5, they have no title over rhe subject lands to transfer. Further, the tenanc)' riqhts cannot be transferred in favour of the third parties, anrl if transier is made, the same is uoid ab initio. It is also n,:t in dispute that there is no express provision enabling thc authorities under the Act to review their own order. In the absence of enabling provision, the statutory allthorit! cannot cntertain the review. This aspect was considerecl by the Apex Court in Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jainl, u,herein it has been held that the power to rc'r'ieu is not an rnherent po\4,'er. It must be conferred by lalr' either expressll,/specifically or by necessary implicatior-r and in the absence of any provision in the Act/ Rules. to revie$r of previous order, it is impermissible as the pov,'er of revierv is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction to revieu can be derived only fi-e- the statute. Thus, any order :rllou'ing of revieu' in the absence of any statutory provision^j,.; zr nr-rllit.v, beir-rg rvithout jurisdiction.

¶120

'^{(2008)2 sc'r: lrt:}

¶121

¶122

In the present case, a reading of the order of the Joint Collector u,ould not indicate existence of any such power under the Act. A reading of entire provision of tenancy act, it does not contain any provision under the Act either by express or by implication creates any such power on the statutory authorities. Even the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 failed to bring to the notice of this Court ^'ith regard to existence of such powers with the statutory authorities acting under the Act. In the absence of such po\'er. the usurpation of powers of review by the Joint Collector is rvithout jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order suflers lrom illegality.

¶123

Further, the lacts on hand show that respondent Nos.1 to 5 have set up their rights on the basis of sale deeds they obtained in the year 20O0 from the legal heirs of protected tenallts i.e., respondent Nos.2B to 35 herein. Such sarle deed s r.vere executed on the basis of 38- tr certificate granted on 20.05.1975, but this certificate was cancelled b1. the Tenalcy Tribunal by order dated 03.02 . 1 993 . This order^q,as unchallenged by the iegal heirs of the protected tcnant or respondent Nos.1 to 5, as such, it has attained finality, which is also not in dispute

¶124

¶125

The iegal l-reirs of the^protected tenant,^{suppressingthe} factum of canceliation of 38-E certificate,^mislead respondent Nos.l to 5, as if that certificate u,as still in force, executed sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on the strength of cancelled 38-E certificate by playing fratrcl. The respondent Nos. I to 5 also failed to verify the validitv of 38-E certificate before they entered sale transactions. Had there been some diligence on the part ol respondent \os. 1 to 5 in verifying the existence ,rf 3B-E ccrtificate, they would not have been mislead zrnd invited erecution of sale deeds. Non-diligence on the part of rcspondenl Nos.1 to 5 also contributed to some extent in cxec ution of invalid sale deeds.

¶126

2.1. lr.r this regard, it is apt to refer to Section 48A of the Ar:1 zrnd it reads as under:

¶127

*48A. Restriction on permanent alienation or transfer of land acquired by protected tenant:- In thc casc of'a permanent alienation or transfer by a protcr:ted tenant of any land in respect of which he has at:cluired tre right of ownership under Section 38 or Sec tion 38D or Section 38-E at the reasonable pri,-e dctermineci by the Tribunal and more thal eight years l-rzn'c' not clapsed since the date of such acquisition, ttre 'lzrlrsildar rnay take over the iand on payment to the protL:ctecl tcnant as compensation a sum equivalcnt to tlte reersonabie price so determined.

¶128

Whcrc any portion of the reasonable price still remains ro be paid to the landholder whose interests u,ere acquired by the protected tenant, such ytortior.r shall be paid to the landholder from the compensation

¶129

¶130

payable under this section and the balance shall be paid to the protected tenant.

¶131

(2) The land so taken over shall vest in the Govcrnntent free from all encumbrances and shall be under tl-rcir management until it is disposed of in accordance rvith the rules made under this Act.

¶132

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply:

¶133

(a) to a simple mortgage effected by the protected tenant; or

¶134

(b) to any gift made by the protected tenant in favour of his spouse or children; provided that an1.. alienation or transfer of land made by the donee within a period of eight years lrom the date ol thc acquisition of the ownership by the protected tenant shaii be subject to the restrictions contained in this section as if it was an alicnatrtrn or transfer made by the protected tenant."

¶135

A reading of the above provision would indicate that il the protected tenalt was granted ownership certificatc under Section 38, 38-D and 38-tr, and if eight _r'ears have been completed from the date of grant of such certificate, then he gets right of alienation. Tiil then, the protected tcnant has no right of alienation even he obtained ou'r-rership certificate.

¶136

Section 19 of the Act enables the legal heirs of the protected tenant to inherit the protected tenant's rights T}-re protected tenant has no right to alienate such rights in favour of third parties, and if aly such alienation is made, it is irrvalid and uoid ab initio and suffers from nr-r1litr. ar-rd it

¶137

¶138

is an act ol damage to property rvhich enable the o\ mer to terminate l)rotected tenarcy rigl-rts by foliou ing procedure.

¶139

¶140

In the present case, by the time u'hen the sale deeds were executed, the legal heirs of the protected tenant were not having aly ownership rights under Section 38, 38-D or 38-E. Previously, they {,e fe granted 38 tr r:ertificate gralting or,l'nership, but such certificate u,as annulled by proceedings dated 03.02.1993 Therefore, the lega1 heirs of the protec'l-ed tenant had no title or a-iienable rights over the subject lands to sell the same to respondent Nos.1 to 5 This has been rightly appreciated b1' the statutory authority previously in its order dated 20.08.2005, in the appeal filecl by respondent Nos. 1 to 5

¶141

Suppressing the said facts, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 again filed review application before the Tahsildar, after nearly seven years from the date of such order. However, the Tahsilctar, by his prudence, rightlr, held tirat he has no power to review. This prudenc)' rvas lackir-rg on the part of the Joint Collector, who is the appellate allthority. The Joint Collector, without any statutory support and rvithout application of mind, set aside the order of 'l'ahsildar, accepting the surrender of tenancy rights. Unfortunately,

¶142

¶143

the Joint Collector has also even set aside the order granting succession to the iegal heirs of the protected tenants under Section 40 of the Act, which r.r,a s not under review. This action of the Joint Collector shor,r,s over enthusiasm in reversing the orders of surrender of protected tenant's rights. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality ald it requires to be set aside.

¶144

(

¶145

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allou,ed with costs as follows:

¶146

i) The impugned order dated 0 I .09.20 1 5 in Case No.F2/1323/2013 on the file of the..Ioint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside; ancl tl-re orders of the Tahsildar, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddv District in case No.A/668/2004, dated 10.06.2004 and 18.10.2004 are confirmed; and

¶147

ii) Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to pa-v costs of Rs. 1O,OOO/- to the revision pctitioners

¶148

Miscellareous petitions, if any, pcnding, shall stand

¶149

closed.

¶150

SD/-M,MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶151

¶152

SECTION OFFICER

¶153

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS C.R.P.No.s333 OF 2015

¶154

Costs as quantified by Hon'ble Court

Rs.10,000/-

Total

10,000/-

Costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) to be paid by the Respondents 1 to 5 to the revision^petitioners

¶161

To,

¶162

The Joint Collector-|, Ranga Reddy District

¶163

The Tahasildar (M.R.O.)Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy District 3. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI K. V. SESHAGIRI RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI V.V. RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶164