The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order by the Single Judge. The bench found the Single Judge correctly referred the question of legal heirship of a deceased protected tenant to the Mandal Revenue Officer for factual determination before deciding the underlying appeal.
Writ appeal dismissed; interim suspension vacated; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 834 OF 2004
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order dated 6-1-2004 in W.P.No.11299 of 2000 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS
l.A.NO:'l OF 2004(WAMP.NO:2675 0F 2004)
Petitionundersect.onl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled in supfortof the peiition,tne Hign Court may be pleasedto p"irit-tna petitioner to'iitethe additional documentsas additional material papers in the W.A
Counselfor the Appellants: SRI'M'RATNA REDDY
Counselfor the RespondentNos-1 & 2 : GP FORREVENUE
Counselfor the Respondent No'3 : NONEAPPEARED
Counselfor the RespondentNo'4 : SRI'V'VENKATARAMANA
The courtmadethe following ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
(
I E REPALLI N
W.A.No. 834 of 2fi)4
IIIDGMEN-T,,l'e, th( I tan'hhtti ( t'kt Jutrr.zt ITatltt'u1an)
This writ appeal has been preferred against the final order dated 06.01.2004 passed by the leamed Single Judge disposing of V.P.No.11299r of 2000 filed by respondent No.4 as rhe peririoner.
\ "In respect of lands in Survey Nos .6, 7, g, l4l and 3+4 of j Ausfiapur Village, Ghar&esa. n^rarf, n r*" Reddy Drstnct,
2
owned by one Meer Aslam Khan, a pe6on by rnnre K.Narayana was declared as protecrcd rcnaft. fL was also issued cerdficarc on 26.05.1975 under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and furicultural Lands Act, 1950 (for shon'the Act). The land holder, lv1eer fulam Khan, preferred an appeal against the said cenificate before the Joint C-ollector, Ranga Reddy District- 1" respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the original tenant and holder of l8-E cenificate is said to have died on 05.$.1977 . Respondents 4 to 6 were brought on recond as his legal heia. The 1" respondent allowed the appeal thnough his order dated 05.01.1988 and remanded the matter to the2"d respondent for fresh consideration. The 2d respondent,in tum passed an order dated10.09.1993 holdingdntthe cenificarc issued underSection38-E of the Act does not suffer fromany illegality or infirmicy'Thereupon'the legal hein of theland holder preferredan appealbefore*re l" respondent.
Duringthe secondround of litigaciorL the petitioner herein iiletlan application before the 1" respondent to implead himin the appeal preferred bythe landhol&a' Thesarne *as re,**Oy the l"respondcnt throughhis orderdated ,U.O,.rOOO.Petitionerchallengesthe sarrr in thisv"rit petition.l'etitioner
petition.l'etitionerconwnds rhat rhcre was neveran occassoinfor anv.rutltoritv to decidetlrc questionas to who the legalhein o[ thedeceasedprotected tenantxre andthatthe landhol&n havcirnpleaded respondents + to 6 withan anempt to &feat of theactual lcgal heirsof the protectedtenant'It is ;;;t: also statedthat rcsp'ondents4 to 6 have nothingto do withthe
J
protecEd tenant and even their surnaftEs and other descriptions do not suppon their clairn"
"The application filed impreaded in rhe,o*,r;;dr* l;I:ffiT:.:H rejected In a way, the clain o[ the petitioner, squarell' fafis wirhin the ambir of s..rn f :41 decrarcs that the r;;::i'::T;:.:,j"1.:T, :: heriable. The lvf.rndal Reve CII-icer, is vestccl rr'ith the power to decide as .o oo ,nu. "'ttiousclairnrnts ate the legal hein ,, o-.r., ,"i"'nrong -'n"t" is nothi.g rx rec.rd to discrose that any exercise ,."rt' undenlken b'r' tire contpetent authoriry to decide the rivar , The m'rnner rn w'hich respondents 4 to 5 came ,o o, ''t'nt evident from,n. ";';;.u ff:i:nT::I":; ;: ear[er round o[ Iirigation. tr.rgrrrr ur rcspcct or..r v.rrr ev.nr oi
4
valuable land camot be permined to be dealt with in such a nLlnner.
Under these cicumsances, this Coun is of rhe view that the question as to who among the writ pedtioner on dre one hand and respondens 4 to 6 on the orher are the legal hein of tle deceased protected tenant, needs to be decided by the Idandal Revenue Officer, panicularly, havurg regard to the fact that there is dispute as to the actual &scription of the protected tenant also.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the writ petitioner to submit an application before the Mandal fuvenue Officer, Glu*esar, claiming the status of legal heir of the deceased protected rcnant in respect of lands referred to above, within a period of three weels from today, duly impleading respondents4 to6. Onsuchapplication being made, the Mandal Revenue Officer,Ghatkesar, shxll ;sue notice of hearing to respondens4 to 6, consider the matter on the bxis o[ thematerial placedbeforehim, and pass appropriate ordersu'ithin a periodof tw'o montls from the date of prescntationo[ thc applicationby the petitioner'The funher proceedingsin rhc appealpending beforethe t" respondent shallbe deferredby three months'Only such persons, that.rre declaredas legal hein of the deceased prorcctedtcnantbv the Mand'rlRcvcnueC{ficer' Ghatkesar' shall be entitledto Panicipatein the :rppea['No costs"'
\
5
I
1
AP.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act,1950. Since this was a disputed question of fact, learned Single Judgetook the view that it should be decided by the }vhndal Revenue Officer one v/ay or the other. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was given liberry to submit an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, to stake his claim as a legal heir of the deceased protected renant. \4andal Revenue Officer was directed to decide the matter within a period of rwo monrhs from the date of presentation of the application by respondent No.4 after giving due notice ro the appellants. Till a decision was taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, respondent No.l- Joint C.ollector, Ranga Reddy District was directed to cleter the hearing in the appeal bythree montls.
6::
good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10.r0flrit Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, interim suspension of the order of the learned
Single Judge, granted bythis C-ourt on2I.O9.2OO4,standsvacated'
trfscellaneouspetitions, pending if any, stand dismissed'
,:BfPt'A'gA';[XI //rRUEcoPY//
'MoFFlcER
"l$;$,tli$'[!:#-'Jilffii""'"'''*'ie'rreansanaa'i
S.A LS
r{
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 310712022
JUDGMENT
WA.No.834 of 2004
{^,testa \
()
i<br>?
2E SEP C)
.,/
, :.-'
DISMISSING THE W.A
WITHOUT COSTS.
(t'rl-<br>t^
1
\tl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court interfered with the Single Judge's order regarding the determination of legal heirs in a tenancy dispute.
Whether the dispute as to who are the actual legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant requires a fact-finding exercise by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
K. Krishna Reddy
K. Sarala Reddy
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, East, Ranga Reddy District
Mir Shabuddin Ali Khan
Kavedi Ram Reddy
Ujjal Bhuyan
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
