Dismissed

Kura Subhadra Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jul 2023CRP/2111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed to expeditiously dispose of an application for succession certificate under Section 40 of the Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950. The Court held that since a 38-E ownership certificate was granted in 1995, the applicant became the absolute owner after the restriction period expired, rendering the Section 40 application misconc

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Kura Subhadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWENTY FIFTHDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN}

¶6

CIVIL REVIS^{ION PETITIO N No:2111oF 2023}

¶7

PetitionUnderArlicle22Tconstitutionoflndia,byexercisrngthesupervisory jurisdictionofthiscourtanddirectingtheRespondentNo.2toexpeditethehearingof petition in l.A.No. /2021^{on the file of the Tashildar'Kosgi'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kura Subhadra^{Kumari,D/o Late Kura tt/loghulaiah'Aged about 60 years'} Occ. Agriculture'

¶10

KuraDevadath,^{S/o Late Kura friloghulaiah,Aged about 56 years, occ' Govt'} Emp. cum Agriculturalist

¶11

Kura Chinna^{Moghulaiah,S/o Late KuraChandraiah'Aged about 66 years'} Occ. Agriculture

¶12

All are^{permanent resident of H No 17-56'KosgiProp-gr.& rnandal'} "'PETITIoNERS ii"rry*pE[ ai.t,i"t.

¶13

AND

¶14

The State^{of Telangana, rep' By its DistrictCollector'NarayanpetDistrict}

¶15

The Tahsildar,^{Kosgi Mandal, Narayanpet district}

¶16

Ananlha^{Reddy,S/o LateNawaz Reddy'Aged 60. y.ears' Occ- Agriculture'Fl/o} " il;hffi;;iii,icirltv ot koigi p,.op",. and mandal' Naravnpet^Dist'

¶17

Srinivas Reddy,^{S/o Late Nawaz Reddy,Aged s8.years, occ Agriculture, R/o} - E#;;;;;:i ii,crritv ot xoigi^{proper dnd mandal' Naravnpet Dist'}

¶18

Ramabadra^{Reddy, S/o Late Nawaz Reddy' Aged 50 vears'OccAgriculture'} " iii;' il;il;nwio i'rbiaritvti i;:gi ;;di6 iro^"ma no a(^{N a ravn pet Dist'}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Counsel for.the^{Petitioners:SRI B' MOHAN}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Respondents: None Appeared}

¶22

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN CML REVISION PETITION No.211 I of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

1 The present civil revision petition has been liled seeking dircction to respondent No.2 to dispose ol an application filed under Section 40 of Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 (for short "the Act, 1950").

¶27

The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that one Late .Kura Chandraiah @ Kura Chandrappa was the original protectecl tenant over the land to an extent of total Ac.3.3O guts in Sy No.1918 and 1919 of Kosgi Mandal of Narayanpet District. He died leaving behind his successors in interest. . The petitioners claimed to be slrccessor in interest, for such rights, they filed the present application before respondent No.2 for grant of succession certificate under Section 4O of the Act, 1950 and such application was filed on 19.04.2021 and till date no orders have been passed on such application. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed.

¶28

This Court feels that notice is not required and this can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶29

.ti*

¶30

Mi-,J cRP 2il1 2023

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioners' grand father \ras granted 38-E certificate under the Act, 1950 on 07.06.1995 and subsequently,^he died. Therefore, the petition under Section 40 of the Act,^{1950 was} filed. ln this regard, it is apt to refbr Section⁴⁰ of the Act,^195O, which reads as under:

¶32

Section 4O: (l) All rights of a protected tcnalt shall^be heritable

¶33

(2) If a protected tenant dies, his hcir or heirs shall be entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions^{on which such} protected tenant was holding the l:rnd at thc time^of his death and such heirs may, notwithstandirrg anytl.ring cotltained in^{this Act,} sub-diwide interse according to their shares the^{land comprisedin} the tenancy to which they havc succccdcd-

¶34

(3) If a protected tenant dics without lcaving aly^{heirs, all his} righ ts shall bc extinguished.

¶35

Explanation:- The following persons only shall^{be cleemed to be the} heirs of a protected ter.larrt for the purposes of this^scction:-

¶36

(a) his legitimate lineal descendants by blood or adoption;

¶37

(b) in the absence of any such descendants, his^wrdow for^{so long} as she does not remarry.

¶38

(41 The interest of a protected tenarrt in the land held by him^{as a} protected tenant shall form sixty per cent of the market^{value of all} the interests in the land and that of the^{landholder and of persons} claiming under him shall^{be limitedto the remaining forty per} cent.

¶39

A reading of the above section, it is clear^that the^{section only} shows that the rights of protected^{tenant are heritable.It} prescribes who ar'e legal heirs and who are entitled^{to inheritsuch} rights. Admittedly, the petitioners^{a-re not claiming any protected}

¶40

¶41

¶42

ML,J crt{1, 2n1 202:j

¶43

tcnancv rights itnd their grievance is that the1,216 the legal heirs of Late l(. Chainrlraiah rvho u,as granted 38-E certificate.^Once os,nership hers been granted under 38-E certificate, he is deemed to be havirrg absolute rights of ownership and he is not governed by the Act. 1950 except to the extent of right to alienate it u.ithin seven (07) vcars lrorn the date of grant of such certificate

¶44

In the present case, the ownership certificate has been allegedlv grantcd in the year 1995 and the application under Section 40 has been filed in the year 2O2l and after seven (07) l,ears^{from the date of grant of 3B-E certificate,the restriction} contemplated under the Act is also removed. The holder of 38-E certificate becornes absolute owner. Therefore, the provision of the Act, 1950 is not applicable and he is left with the remedy provided under other lau'. The very application urider Section 40 of the Act, 1950 is misconceived. Therefore, no direction can be given to the MRO since such application is not maintainable. Therefore, the Civil Revision Pe tition is liable to be dismissed.

MI,,J cRP 2tI1 2023

6 Accordingly, Civil Revision petition is dismissed No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petrtions, if any, pcnding, shall sLand

¶49

closed.

¶50

Sd/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -J}/':

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Tashildar, Kosgi.

¶54

One CC to SRI B. MOHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies \ karn \UV-

HIGH COURT

ML,J

DATED:2510712023

1\ E STAr€.
€-
c o
d e ts rut
a
D ,'.,o

¶61

ORDER

¶62

CRP.No.2111 of 2023

¶63

DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS o e:b

¶64

Kura Subhadra Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kura Subhadra Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Smt., K.Nirmala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Telangana

Jalagam Vengal Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Nedure Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Police Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana