Allowed

Ramanuja Rama Priya, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023WP/39574/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, setting aside the Joint Collector's order which had set aside the Revenue Divisional Officer's grant of 38-E ownership certificates to the revision petitioners (legal heirs of a protected tenant). The Writ Petition challenging the same was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Writ Petition No.39574 of 2014 is dismissed.

Ramanuja Rama Priya, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPIEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos : 256 & 492 OF 2018

¶6

And

¶7

wRtT PETTTON NO.39574 0F 2014

¶8

CRP No. 256 ot2018:

¶9

Petition Under Section 91 of A.P. (T.A. ) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 aggrieved by the common order dated 0A-12-2017 in Case No. F21568912017 and Case No. F1199-2014 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the order dated 30-09-20'14 in File No. K/ 4650 12013 on the of the Revenue Divisional Officer, ( Present Shadnagar Division) of Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

Between:

¶11

A LAXIVIA REDDY, S/o.Late A.Narayan Reddy ( died per LRs) OccAgriculture, R/o,Kammadanam Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶12

A.Ashok Reddy, S/o.Late A.Narayan Reddy, Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kammadanam Village, Farooq Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

A.Narayan Reddy, S/o.Late A.Ram Reddy, Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kammadanam Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-

¶14

Chandrakala, Wo. Late A. Laxma Reddy,- aged 52 years,R/o. H.No. l-8, Kammadhanam Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, R.R. Diskict.

¶15

N. Jyothi, Wo. Malla Reddy, D/o. Late A. Laxma Reddy, R/o. H.No.^1-8, Kammadhanam Village, Farooq Nagar lVlandal, R.R. District.

¶16

A. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o. Late A. Laxma Reddy,^{R/o. H.No. 1-8,} Kammadhanam Vrllage, Farooq Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

¶17

7 . A. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late A. Laxma REddy, R/o.^H.No.1-8, Kammadhanam Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

¶18

(Petitioners 4 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased^{P1 as per} C O dt. 21.4 2022 in lA No.^{2 o'( 2021.)}

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

V. Gopinath Reddy, S/o.V.Ramalinga^{Reddy,Occ-Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-} 56/54, Domalaguda,^HYderabad.

¶22

Smt.V.Sutochana Reddy,^{Wo.VGoprnath Reddy,Occ-Housewife,} R/o.H.No 1-2-56/54. Domalaguda.^Hyderabad-29

¶23

Yennam Anji Recdy, S/o.Narayan^{Reddy, Occ-Agrtculture,} R/O.Kammidanam Village,^{FarooqnagarMandaL, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶24

P.Rama Krishna Rao, S/o.Laxr-nan^{Rao, Aged [i/ajor,Occ-Business,} R/o.Kammadanain Village,^{Farooqnagar ltllandal,Ranga Reddy District'}

¶25

The Revenue Divrsional^{Officer Shadnagar Division(Old lvlahabubnagar} Division) Ranga tleddY^District

¶26

The Tahasildar,^{F'arooqnagar N4andal,Ranga Reddy Diskict'}

¶27

( Respondents 3 to 6 are not^{necessary party to this revision)}

¶28

Ramanuja Rama^{Prrya, S/o B G R Ayyangar aged 50 Veals} [19-,H]t^o-^1f . 5-14gt4t11, Sri t;ai^{Apartments.VrJayapuriColony,Secunderabad Rep} -^0y [ui Spu.ir'f Po*u.^{of Attorney Hoider'SriG ChbndraSekhar Red.dy'..S/o'} fViOnSt, h"aay^{aged 47 yrs R/o H No. 1-6-212165144' IV C H(West} Colony), Parsigulta,^HYderabad.

¶29

(ResoondentNo.ThasbeenimpleadedasperCO.datedl6-11-2018in in rrrol z of 2o18 in CRP No^{256 of 2o1B as Respondent No. 7)}

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶32

Petition under s,--ction^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in suoport of the petition.the High court may be pleased To} .rip"nO the operatiorr^{of the impugnedcommonorder passed by the Joint} coliector, Ranga^{Reddy District in case No. F2l5689/2017and caseNo} 7119912014,dated18.12-20lTandtocontinuetheRoRinthenamesofthe p"tition"rs in respect o; the PT^{land in Sy. Nos. 190,191} '^{192,198,'105,131} '¹³⁷ and 189, at Kammadanam^{village, FaroognagarMandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict'} and pass

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶34

Petition under section^{151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the Highcourt may be pleased to} permit the petitioner / Respondent^{No 7 to file the present Additional counter} Affidavit in CRP No. 256t2018^{and receive the same and pass}

¶35

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶36

petition under section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supoort of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to hear and dispose of the C F.P.No.256 of 2018 and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deenrs fit and proper^jn the interest of Justice.

¶37

IA NO:4 OF 2021

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to file the Material papers as Additional Material papers in CRP. No. 256 of 2018 and by receiving the same

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. DIDA VIJAYA^KUMAR

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 : SRI^T. MAHENDER^RAO

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRI L. PRABHAKAR^REDDY

¶42

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 492 OF 2018

¶43

Petition Under Section 91 of A.P. ( T.A. ) Tenancy and Agricultural^Act, 1950 aggrieved by the common order dated 08-12-2017 in^{Case No.} F119912014 and Case No. F1199-2014 on the file of the Joint^{Collector, Ranga} Reddy District preferred against the order dated 30-09-2014 in File No. 1( 4650 12013 on the of the Revenue Divisional Officer, ( Present Shadnagar Division) of Ranga Reddy District.

¶44

Between:

¶45

1 . A.Laxma Reddy S/o. Late A. Narayan Reddy,⁽ died^per LRs ) aged about 50 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o, Kammadanam Village, Faroorinagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶46

A. Ashok Reddy, S/o. Late A Narayan Reddy, aged about 45^{years, Occ-} Agriculture, R/o. Kammadanam Village, Faroocinagar Mandal,^Ranga Reddy District

¶47

A. Narayan Reddy, S/o. Late A. Ram Reddy, aged about 35^{years, Occ-} Agriculture, Rio. Kammadanam Village, Faroognagar Mandal,^Ranga Reddy District

¶48

Chandrakala, Wo. Late A. Laxma Reddy, R/o. H.No.^{1-8, Kammadhanam} Vlllage, Farooq Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

¶49

N. Jyothi, Wo. Malla Reddy, D/o. LateA^{LAxmaReddy, R/o. H.No.l-8,} Kammadhanam Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, R.R.^District.

¶50

A. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o. Late^{A. Laxma Reddy,R/o. H.No. 1-8,} Kammadhanam Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal,^{R.R. District.}

¶51

A. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late A.^{Laxma Reddy, R/o. H.No. 1-8,} Kammadhanam Village, Farooq^{Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.}

¶52

(Petitioners 4 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of^{the deceasedP1 as per} C.O. dt. 21 4 2022 in lA^{No 2 of 2021)}

¶53

..,PETITIONERS

¶54

AND

¶55

Yennam Anji Reddy S/o.^{Narayan Reddy,aged about 57 years, Occ-} Agriculture.-Kammidanam^{Village, Faroognagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶56

2 The Revenue [)ivisional Officer^{Shadnagar Division (old Mahabubnagar} Division) Ranga ReddY District

¶57

The Tahsildar, =aroocingar^{l,4andal. Ranga Reddy District.}

¶58

(Respondents 2 & 3 are not necessary^{party to this revision)}

¶59

Ramanuja Rama Priya, S/o^{B.G.R Ayyangar} ,^{aged. 50 yearlOccL} Busines6 R/o ll No. iz-s-lqgtqtll^{Sri Sai Apartments, VijayapuriColony} Secunderabad. Rep.^{by her Special Power of AttorneyHolder.S.rt G} CninOra Sekhar Reddy, Sio^{Mddhava Reddy, aged 47 yrs, R/o H No 1-} 6-212t65t44, M C.H.^{(WestColony), Parsigutta, Hyderabad}

¶60

Respondent N:. 4^{has been impleaded as per- C O dated 16-11-2018} ,iOe'I n no 2 of^{2O1B in CRP No 492 of 2018 as RespondentNo 4}

¶61

...RESPONDENTS

¶62

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶63

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed ir^{support of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} dispense with filing^{of tire original copy of the impugned common order in-the} ,.uirion filed in Cale^{No. F1tggl2o14, dated08-12-2017 as the petitioners filed} the neat Xerox copy^{of the same and further as the petitioners filedthe copy of} the original impugned^{order in the cRP filedagainst in connectedcase No} F2t568912017

¶64

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶65

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances staied} in the affidavit filed irr support^{of the petition,the High Court maybe pleased to} hear and dispose of the^{b,R.pNo.492 of 2018 and grant such_other relief or} reliefs as this Honble^{courtdeems fit and proper in the interestof Justice.}

¶66

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶67

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} permit the petitioners to file the Material^{papersas Additional Material papers in} C.R.P.No. 492 of 20'^{B and by receiving the same.}

¶68

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. DIDA VIJAYAKUMAR}

¶69

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4:^{SRI RAVI CHANDRABEJJARAM}

¶70

WRIT PETITION NO: 39574 OF 2014

¶71

Between:

¶72

Ramanuja Rama Priya, S/o B.G.R. Ayyangar Aged 46 years, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 12-5-149/4111, Sri Sai Appartments, Vijayapuri Colony, Secunderabad, Rep. by his Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri G. Chandra Sekhar Reddy S/o Madhava Reddy, aged 43 years, R/o H. No. 1-6-212165144, M.C H (West Colony) Parsigutta, Hyderabad

¶73

...PETITIONER

¶74

AND

¶75

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prrncipal Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶76

2 The Joint Collector, Mahboob Nagar District, Mahboobnagar

¶77

The Revenue Divisronal Officer Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboonagar District

¶78

The Tahasildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, [t/ahaboobnagar District

¶79

Chatla Chandrasekhar, S/o late Veerappa Aged 45 years, Occ Business, R/o Kammadanam village, Faroocinagar Mandal, Mihaboobnagar District

¶80

Chatla Chandra Kala, Wo C. Chandrasekhar Aged 40 years, Occ Business, R/o Kammadanam village, Faroocinagar ttlandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶81

A. Laxma Reddy, S/o late Narayana Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Kammadanam village, Farbochagar, Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District

¶82

8 A. Ashok Reddy, S/o late Narayana Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ Agriculture R/o Kammada nam village, Faiooc-inagar, - Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District

¶83

Narayana Reddy, S/o late Ram Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Kammadanam village, Farooqnagar, Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District

¶84

'l 0. Smt. Chandrakala Wo. Late A. Laxma Reddy, Aged about 52 years, OccHouse wife,

¶85

11.N. Jyothi Wo. Malla Reddy S/o. Late A. Laxma Reddy,, Aged about 32 years, Occ House wife,

¶86

12.A. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy S/o. Late A Laxma Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ Pvt., Employee

¶87

13.A. Srinivas Reddy S/o Late A. Laxma Reddy,, Aged about 28 years, Occ Agriculture. Respondents 10 to 13 are R/o. H.No. 1-8- Kammadhanam Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

¶88

Respondents Nos 10 to 13 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased Respondent No.7 as per C.O. dt.211412022. in l.A. No. 112021 .

¶89

...RESPONDENTS

¶90

Petition under ,Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances statec in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a wr t, order or directton more^{particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus <leclaring the^{action of the 3rd Respondent as illegal,} arbitrary and withoui^jurisdiction in^{issuingthe impugned order videNo} Kl465012013 dated 30-09-20'14^{on the file of the RevenueDivisional Officer,} Mahaboobnagar, [Vlahaboobnagar^{District i.e. the 3rd Respondent and thereby} issued owneiship c,:rtificate^{under section 3B (E) as also consequential} proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent^{vide Notice No 61247612014daled} 31-10-2014 thereto^a rd set-aside^{the same.}

¶91

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201S(WPMP.^{NO:8695OF 2015)}

¶92

Petition under section 148 of^{CPC prayingthat in the crrcumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Courtmaybe pleased extendthe} interim order dated 24.12.2O14^{passedin wPIVIPNo. 4963 ot 2014 in wP No- 39574} of 2014 fot further^{period of eight weeks,in the interestof justice}

¶93

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016^{(WPMP.NO: 44228 OF 2016)}

¶94

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumslances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition. the High court maybe pleased suspend.the} Proceedings No.(4650/2013,^{dated30-09-2014issuedby the 4th Respondent} pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶95

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP.^{NO: 49637 0F20141}

¶96

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in supporl^{of the petition,the Highcourt may be pleased to directthe 4th} Respondent not to issue^{Pattadar PassBooksand Title Deedsetc in respect of the} land of about an extent of^{Ac 17-32 guntasin survey numbers 105 - Ac 9-09 guntas,} in survey number 189^{- Ac 3-17 guntas, in survey.number 190 - Ac 0-36 guntasin} survey number - 191^{' Ac 1-39 guntas in survey number 192 - Ac 1-14 guntasin} survey number 198 Ac^{O-37 guntas situateat Kammadanam villageof Faroocinagar} tvlandal,Mahaboobnagar Distrlct to^{the Respondents 7 to 9 in the interest of justice} pending finalization of the writ^petition and to^pass

¶97

Counset for the Petitioner:^{DR.J. VIJAYALAXMI}

¶98

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 5 : GP FORREVENUE(TG)}

¶99

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 7 to 9 : SRI ERANKI PHANI KUMAR}

¶100

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 10 to 13 : SRl. DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR

¶101

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶102

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE II4 .G. PRTYADARSINI

¶103

C.R.P. Nos.256 88492 of 2018

¶104

AND

¶105

WRIT PETITION No.39574 of 2Ol4

¶106

COMMON ORDER:

¶107

Since the controversv involved in all three matters i.e., CRp No. 256 of 2078, CRP No. 192 of 2OI8 and W.p. No. 39574 of 2O14, is one and. the samc, they are clubbed together and a cornmon order is being passed.

¶108

CRP No. 256 of 2OI8 and CRp No. 492 of 2O1B are prcferred by ihe revision petitioners assailing r-he ordcrs ciared I B, 12 .20 17 passecJ in case No- tr2/5689 i2or7 ar-rd case No. ttt /9c) l2t) 14 respectively, on the fiic of ttre Joint collector, Ranga Recldy District, rvhcreby ancl wtrereunder, thc .loinr collcctor, scl- aside rire order dated rJo-09- 2or4 in lrilc No. K/ 1650 /2013 o, the fiie of thc Rcvenue Divisional orficer, shadnagar Division (old Mahabuk,tagar Division), Respondent No.S, in which the Respondent No.5 hzrd granted ow.crship certificate under section 3g-tr of the Andhra Pradesh ('l'eia,gana Area) I'enancy a.d Agriculture Lands Act, t950 (for short, '[he Ar.:t) i. favr:ur of the Revision petiti.r-rers in respect of the land in Sy.No. i90 (1\c.O.34 guur.r-rsN, Sy.No. 191 (Ac.l .35 gtrntas), Sy.No 192 (Ac. 1.12 gr-rntas), Sy.No. t98 (Ac.l.l0 gunras), Sy.No. 1O5 (hc:.9.1)9 gur-rtas), Sy.i{o. 131 (Ac.9. Jlj gunra:s), Sy.No. 137 (Ac.1O.07) and

¶109

)

¶110

¶111

Sl,.Nu- 189 (Ac 5.07 guntas), totally admeasuring Ar:.38.07^guntas, situatcd at Kamrn Ldanan'r villaqc, Farooqnagar Manclal, Mahaboob^Nagar Disliict.

¶112

Thc fercts; ol thc casc arc that lhc revision^{pctitionershavc fileda} petition belorc thr: Respondr:nt No.5 stating that^{lhelr father, narrel,r'} Yammiredd-i, Nara,'an Rcddl',^{u'tls ProtectedTcnant('PT')over the land in} Sr'.No. 190^{(Ac.t)..34 guntas).51'.No. 191 (Ac. 1.35 guntas),Sy No192} (Ac.l . l2 guntasl, S1'.No. 198^{(Ac.1 10} Suntas),^{S-"No. 105 (Ac 9 09} gunlas), S),.No. ,fl 1^{(Ac.13.37 grLDtas), Sy.No.137 (Ac li> 12 gur1ias) and} S1'.No. 189^{(Ac.l;.07 guntas). totallyadmeasuringAc 47 16 guntas,} si[uaied r,r.ithrn^{th.: Iimits of Karnmadanamvillage, Farrooqnagar Mandal,} Mairaboob Nagari)tstrict^{along u,ith one Ramalingambut beforcKhasra} Irahani 1954-55^{itseif, saidF.arnalingam statcd to havesurrendet'ed11'} Rigl-rts oraily and^{thus,YamirccldyNarayan Reddyalone remained as a} sole PT over the^{subject lancl tilll-ris death, after l.rim the revision} pelitioncrs are it-t^{possession anclenjoyment of lhe said lands lt is t1-reir} furthcr case that^{their father, Narayana Reddy diedleavingbehindthc} Revision Petitionr:rs,^{one Anji Reddyand Narsimha Reddyand inthe} famrly settlemerrl ,^{Anji Rcdcly and Narsimha Reddy,stated tohave} relinquished the ir right^{over lhc subjectlandsir-r lieuof allotmentof other} lands. It is furl her stated^{tha.t the Revision Petitioners are the non-} surplus land holders and as such entitled to 3B-E certificate. The Respondent No.5 having issuecl notices to all the interested persons,

¶113

¶114

¶115

conducted enquiry and awarded 38-E certificatc in^favour of^Revision Petitioners as per the orders dated 30.09.2014^{in rcspectof said Jands,} totally admeasuring Ac.38.07^guntas.

¶116

Aggrieved by the order ol the^{rcspondent No.5 dated} 30.09.2014, while one Ramanuja^{Rama Priya filed a writ petition vide WP} No. 39574 of 2014 before this Court, the^Respondents No.l^to 3^{in the} revision petitions filed appeals vide case Nos. F2/5689/2017 and^Case No. FL199 /2O 14 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Joint Collector, by the impugned orders, set aside the orders of the rcspondent No.5, dated 30.O9.2014 in File No. K/465012013 while penrling W.P.No.39574 of 2014. Therefore, thc revrsion petitioncrs filed the prcsent two Revisior.rs vide CRP No. 256 of 20 18 anci CRP No. 492 of 20 l8 question the order of the Joint Collector, R.R.District, datcd O8.O9.2O17. It is to be observed that as the writ petition was filed questioning the orders of the respondent No. 5, dated 30.09.20 14 and as the said orders were set aside by the Joint Collector vide orders dated Oa.O9.2Ol7, this Court, vide orders dated 24.11.2022 dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. However', subsequently, whrle hearing the revision petitions, this Court, in order to give hnality ro the litigation, has allowed I.A. No. I of 2022 restoring the wril pctilion and heard the writ petition along with the revision pctitions.

¶117

The case of the Revision Petitioners as stated in the grounds and as contended by the counsel for the Revision Petitioners is that,

¶118

¶119

origineLlll' on(' sn L Lirxrnr llrll srLmma rvas the pattirdzLr of thc- land rr.r su^ie v N,. 1(l(.), I^(l I, 192. l(r,r. 105, 131, 137 & 169 at Kammlrcla,am Village, [.a..,rr1r,ir3irr 1\4andal. \lahabubnagar DistricL (prcse'rtl-r, Rang. Rcdclv Drstr tcl). I lorvr:r,r:r r,rrL Chatla Ramalingarm :utd ynrnireddr Naravanzr I{'clrlr . u ho is ihc irrrhcr ol the Revision Pctitioners. arc t}tc joint protcct< rl t,rr rrnls ol thc ::aicl land. Howcver, pnor Lo prcparittion o[ Khasrzr 1()41 :.-, ilrLrl:rlinganr lrzLd surrendercd thc t.otzrl PT lancl to thc I:rthcr ol ilrc I<r' isron [)(,{iril)],('rs and accordingllr, rhe fathct- of thc Rcvisron I)r'lirront'rs rritr.:tch,, litti Yamireddy Narayana Reddy continuccl to be thr: PI'to llrc 1r,t;rl cxtcnt.

¶120

Al'lcr 1lr,' dcath of Yirn-Lireddy Narayana Rcctdy, 38-tr ccrtificatc was issuccl in ilrc rrirmc ol hrs rr ilc Satyarnma in file No. 175511974 datc(l 15- l2 l9c)O onl\ lo thc cxtent ol- PT land i.e. land admeasuring Acres 11 13 Guntas ir.r sLrncv No. 131, 137 & 189. In view of surrender of the land by thc oLhcr Ivl', IllLnrairr-rgam. lhc Rcvision Petitioners have initiated thc proceedings lor- lirrnt ol 38-E t:crtificate to the entire extent ol the PT land held b-v thctt ltt:r: l:rther Yanrrccld], Na."r"rru *.OOr. While so, Charla Chandra Shr:l<irr i rrd his rvifc. clrriming to be the adopted son o[ Veerappa. who is the onl1, s,>n o[ LaLe Ramalingam, started to claim the PT rights over thc abovc Pl' land as the lcgal heirs of Late Ramalingam and in this regard. the Rr--r,is;ir,n Pctitioncrs have hled a petition U/scc. 32 of Tenanct' Act, 1950 ro pr()r.(,cl lhc PT riqhrs in respect of the above pT land before the MRo, I":r rrr.clr'rr'rg:r r rn rrirc No. B/2zs3l1ggs, i, rvhich the abovc

¶121

¶122

named Chandrashekar claimed that he is the grandson of Late Ramalingam being adopted son of Veerappa. However, the Tahasildar, by order dated 14.O8.2OOO^{negativedthe claim of Chandrashekar and being} aggrieved thereby, he also filed an appeal before^{the JointCollector in File} No- F1/ L1/2OOO in which, the orders passed by the MRO, Farooqnagar u,as confirmed by the Joint Collector by order dated 15.09.2OO0. When the matter was carried in revision, this Court dismissed CRP No. 3539 of 2O0O by orders dated 12.02.2007 confirming the orders ol the Tahsildar and the.Joint Collector. Therefore, said Chandrashekar is not having any right or claim whatsoever in the part of the above PT land. The Revision l'ctitioners, in addition to obtaining 38-E certificate in thc narne of their molher Satyamma in respect of part of the Pl land, also initiateci the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File NoK/465012013 to obtain 38-E certificate for the total extent of PT land lor u.hich they are entitled to be given ownership certillcate under section 38E of the Act, 1950. After giving notices to all the parties to the proceedings anci there is no response from anybodl. to opposc the grant of 38-E cerlificate, the Respondent No.5 issued 38-E certificate undcr question in favour of Revision Petitioners which is set aside by the Joint Collector by the impugned orders.

¶123

The main contention of the Revision Petitiont:rs is that the Respondents herein have no locus to question the order of the Respondent No. 5 dated 30.09.2014 on the ground thar the sale transaction of the

¶124

rE--r.F-E \4

¶125

¶126

Respondents Nr . I Lr; 3 arrrl r itc Writ Petitioncr irrc oontrarv to the provision in scctii,ri .lE I) ol 1l'rc nct. IL is contende(l that as thc claim ol' thc adoption st:( t-^p br ChalliL^{('lr:rndrashckar} and his n,ifc was ncgativecl by the order rl:-rli r: f^.i.08.200() i-r thc^{'l'atrsildar,} u.hich u'as upl-reld by this Coutt in Clll, No .l5.l.l O[ 2()(){). rhc Writ Perition^js not maintainable when an ailcl'nirti. i' r'i:mcdv rs 1r,,,:rrlable and that thcrc is no bar to issne 38 E Cerlificrrtc Irrr thc remarnrn;1 land. It is contcndcd that the Joint Collector passi-'ri t hc irnpuunr' l order contrary to thr: record on the assumptions rrn{l rrt'sumptioirs rrrd the same is liablc to be sct aside.

¶127

B. 'l'hr: r'lt sl ol- ther Rcspo rrlcnts No.1 & 2, as slat()d in the countcr filed in CRIr No. 2 itr ol 2018 :rnrl CRP No. 492 of 20lU aud as contendcd by Lhe counscl Ir,r thc I?esponriL^r rLs No.l & 2, is that, Chatla Ramalingam is in posscssior.r ol tl-re l:rnd us ,r Protccted Tenant comprising of Ac.8.38 guntas in Survr:r \o. 131 :rrrrl Ac.10.08 guntas in Survey No. 137 re spectively, rvhii<: Y Naral,ana Iir'<ldy was holding to an cxtent of Ac.4.19 guntas in Sun,cy No. 131 ancl Ac.5.04 gulltas in Sun'ey No. I37 and therefore, thc tot,rl cxLcnt ir- s hich the Respondents No.1 & 2 are concerned lor thc land admcasrrring Ac.13.17 guntas rn Survey No. 131 and land admcir:;uring Ac. 15 I 2 guntas. Prior to ycar 1954, Chatla Ramalingam pu.c Ilascd thc in tr:rcst of the land owner, Smt. Laxmi Narsamma in rela ion to the cxt('nt of share of the land held by him as a protected Tcnant :rdmeasurir.rg Ar..8.38 guntas in suruey No. 131 and Ac. 10.08 gunt:rs in Silr^c-r, No. i3r' ,rrd thus he became the ou,ner of the said

¶128

¶129

land and the remaining extent ol land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas ln Surve-' No. 131 and Ac.5.O4 guntas in survey No. 137 o[ Smt. Laxmi Narsamrna was continued in the name of Y.Narayan Reddy as a protected [enanL

¶130

After demise of Ramalingam, his son, Chatla Veerappa succecdcd thc said lands and Veerappa fiied a declaration under the provisions of AP Land Reforms (Sealing on Agricultural Floldings) Act, 1973 dcclaring lands hold by him. In the said declaration, the name of Chatla Veeramanemma and Chandrashekar are shown as u.ife and son and they succccCed the estate of Chatla Veerappa. Satyamma, u,ife of lrlarayan:r Rcddy, was granted 38-E Certihcate for the land adrneasuring Ac.5.04 guntas in Survcy No. 137. land admeasuring Ac.4.19 g..rntas in Sunc) No. 131 and her name was shown as a Pattadar from the ycar 1990 91. The Revision Petitioner No. I sold his portion of land corrlprising extent ol Ac. 1. t3 guntas in survey No. 131 and Ac.1-28 guntas in Survey No. 137 to Sri Malla Reddy through registered document No.22OB of 2000 dated 05.O'2.2000. Chakla Veera Mannemma and son Chatla Chandrashekar have sold land admeasuring Ac. 10.08 guntas ir-r Survey No. 137 in favour of C. Sundaramma through registered salc deed datecl 28.O1.1989 and also sold land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gur)tas in Survel,No. I31. in favour of C- Ramakrishna Rao through registered sale deed clated 28.O 1. 1989 and in thc said sale deeds, the Petitioner No. I signed as a wrLness

¶131

¶132

.i I

¶133

That A;l,ok llt'rlilr. l',^,ioncr No.2 along r',ilh the Merlla Reddl convcycd lzind irclnrcusrrrinq \ -1.26 gunt.rs in survt'' No. 131 and Ac.3.16 guntas ir r Sllr! c! Nt). I 37 in lavour of Ragl-runath through registered sale clc,r(l ritrtcrl I I^1).'r, 2000 and in thc sai<l sale deed Anji Reddy has signecl rs :r rr ilncss. : rr' said Raghunath in lurn sold thc above said land in lavcur o[ thc ]lr's r :dent No.2 through lcgistered sale deed datcd 28.02.200 1 lrncl irlso tlrr Rcspondent No. 2^purchased the^Iand admeasuring hc. 0.1ii^gLurti,s1 ovcred by survcy^{No. 137 from C.} Sunderrmma thrr: ugh rc:sisLt'r, ,l sale deed datcd^{3, i.O8.2000.The} Respondent No. I purchrrsccl liLrrri an extent of Ac.O.39 lluntas in^survev No. 131 frorn ClLal.la^{(]]rnrclrrr'. ,l<ar} through^{rcgistt:rcd sale deed dated} 30.08.200O. Thc Rcsl-lorrrl(rrr^''. i also^{purchasedAc.0.09 guntasin} sur-vey No. 131 hrouqlr^I r'r :^I-ed salc^dccd datcd^{10.05.2001 and} mutated their tta:nt:s itr thi: it^'( nue records. Thc^{llcvisionPetitioners} approached thc [?.csporrricnt^N,r.5 seeking^{ownership certificateunder} section 38-tr in r( spcct^{ol- Lirtcl ,rdmeasuring Ac.13. i7 guntas in survcy} No. 131 and larlcl admcasttrirrr Ac. 15.12^guntas in^{survey No. 137 of} Karnmadanam Villagc s ithont^riisclosing the^{38-E certificate grantedto} their mother in thc vcetr^{I (.r7o} lt is their lurther^{case thatthe} Respondent No,5 lrad ttot issrri:cr irlly nolice to the^{RespondentsNo.1 & 2,} that without conducting pr-r)[x'r^,.'nquiry, he had^{passedthe order dated} 3O-O9-2O14 u'itho rt lollovvLng Llrl mandatory procedurc and order of the

¶134

¶135

Joint Collector is correct and there are no grounds in the revision petitions and that the Petitioners are not entitled for ownership ce rtificate.

¶136

I 1 . Wherc:rs, the case of the Writ Petitioners in WP No. 3957 4 of 2014 (Respondcnt No.7 in CRP No. 256 of 2018 and Respondent No.4 in CRP No. 492 ol 20lB) as mentioned in the Writ Petition and as contended by the counsei for thc Writ Petitioner is that the Writ Pctitioner is the owner ol the land admcasuring Ac.17.32 guntas in Survey No. i05, 189, i9O, 191,I92 8r. 198 having purchased the same through regisrered sale deed dated 2l.O2.2OO7 from Chatla Chandrasekhar and Charla chandrzrkala i.e. Respondcnts No. 5 & 6 in the writ petition and reqr,rcsrerl to dele te the nerme of the^pT rights of the Respondents No. 5 & 6 in the records. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Respondent No.4 in the rvrit. petition, being satisfied with the ownership issued the proceedings clated l0-o4-20 I 8 ancl cffected the mutation in favour of the writ petit.ioner. That chatla Ramalingam and Yamireddy Narayana Reddy are entitled 2/3rd &, l/3.d sharc out o[ the total extent.of Ac.47.16 guntas. Horvever, Ramalingam claimed the entire extent of land on the ground that the other PT Yamireddy Narayana Reddy surrendered his 1/3.a share in his favour long hack. Thar the legar heirs of Narayana Reddv instituted an application before rhe MRO under section 32 (l) of the Ap (TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Act, 1 950 and sough t restoration of their 1 / 3.rr share of Iand for which they werc entitled which was ordered by the MRO by ordcr \1teA I+.OS.2OOO ancl the said order was challenged by Chandrasel<har

¶137

¶138

¶139

(Str, respondcnt hcrt:in) by u';ir^{,,{ filing appcal U/ s. <)O ol the saicl Act} beforc the Joirtt^{(lolleclor.'l'he ,lrrintColicctor dismisscdrl're said appeal} through the orde^{d:rtecl 15.(l(-r -lr) I5 in Appeal CascNoFl/ l5/2000' The} samc was hrrthc;^{challengcrl lIchatla chandrasckl.lar b5' way oi filing} C.R.P. No. 3935^{, rf 2O0Obcforc t llts Court Flolvcver,the zrbovc CRP was} dismissed otr^{10 12.2007 ir.cii' jecLcd thc clarm ()[ ,]ral surrenderof} tenancyriglltsllvChatlaRrrtlztlit'tg:tminfzrvortrrlffatherofthe Respondent^{Nos'.7Lo 8 i.c. Yrltrrrr-r--ddvNarayana Reddr''ln thc said CRP'} it rvas also^{made clcar that} llx^{rir'(rcssorof RcspondcrltNos T to 10 were} having sharc^{:rllrl Chatlalla:r} 'lirlgam^{r"as having :2/3"l shareoverLhc} P.T. rights of^{Lhcabovesaitl pr} '^{pcrtyThe said ordr:r in CRP No 3539 ot} 2000 dated^{12.12.2007I'rtrcl ber'"tleliual betu'eenthe peLrties'}

¶140

Thc nrzril't^{conLcntloli rl' the Writ PcliLionr:ris that the order} dated 30.09.20^{t4 of the Rcsl'rt,'rrlcnt No. 5 is passedrt'ithoutissuingtte} notice. that^{thc .vrlt peti[ionc| rs a botla /ide putrchilser,thatby playing} fraud on thc^{Respondcnt No'5,tl-rc said order is passed contrary to the} order made in^{CttPNo. 3539} ";^{2000, that thc RespondentNo 5 has no} jurisdiction or a uthority^{t otr ll t(lrtatn38-E aPPlication of the Revision} Petil-ioners after^{lapse o[ fortr' (40) long yearswhich is} ln violation^of principles of nalrrrall^justice.

¶141

13 In view ol the above^{;ival contentions,the poinLs that arise for} consideration in hcse cascs ar,'

¶142

¶143

(i) Whetler the Reuis[on Petitioners are the legal heirs of the protected tenant Yainireddy N arag ctna Reddy?

¶144

(ii) Whether the fLnding of the Joitt Collector for determining the shares of originol protected tenants 1/3"t share as against Yamireddg Naragana Reddy and )/ 3'a share as agctinst Chatla Ramalingam is based on any 're uenue record.s?

¶145

(iii) Whether the authoity below is justified in setting aside the order dated 3O-O9-2014 passecl by the Respondent No.S i.e. Reuenue Diuisional Officer? And

¶146

(iu) W'hether the Writ Petitioner as u.tell as the Respondents No. I & 2 in CRP flo. 256 of 2018 haue locus to question the order dated 30.09.2O14 of the Respondent No.S and their saLe transactions is contran! to prouision in Section 38-D of the Act?

¶147

The case o[ both the parties is that Chatla Ramalingam and Yamireddl, Narayana Rcddy are the joint protected tenants of the land admeasuring Ac.47.16 gurltas in r.cspect of survey number IgO, lgl, 1,g2, 198, i05, 131. 137, and 189. situated at Kammadanam village, Farooqnagar Mandal as tenants before khasrapahani.

¶148

That the Ilespondents No. I & 2 and the Writ petitioner have not placed any ownership Ccrtihcatc before this Court to prove that their vendors ivere obtained 38'E certifk:ate from the concerned authorities ior the land sold by ttrern. Admittedly, yamireddy Narayana Reddv a-r-rd bhatto Ramalingam q.ere dieri. Further, the contentio. of. Chatla

¶149

+.3 >1

¶150

¶151

Chandrzrshekar^-cq:rrding thc or;rl surrender in favortr o1 landlady prior to 1954 and that hjs grancllhLht:r'rirrchascd the sllit lrtr.td l-rom thc landladl, in thc capaciLv of Prolected^'i ,'n:lnt tl-rrough l)ri'.11c sale decd^dated ).9.O2.1952 rvas i cjcctcrl by tltc MRO^{Farooqtrttglrrvide ordcrs dated} 14.08.20OO rvhi< h n,as confirn'r(^{(l by the JointCollt:c tor vidc ordcrs dated} 15.09.2000 and thC same is^{Ur,lrcld bv this CoLrrl in CRP No. 3935 of} 2000. That the Rr:spondents^{Nr). 1 & 2 ar-rd thc Writ P()Litroner have not} placcd any recorcl to prove tllal^{Chatla Chaintir:tslli:l<:tru'as adopted b1'} chatla Vecrappir. cvcn thc^{sarrl contcntion$as r;fscd helorethc Joint} Collpctor, cven^rhcn the^{.lo,rrt Colleclor upht'ld rhe ordcrdated} 14.08.2OO0 ol t re^{Tahsrldar-.liarooqnagar.'l'hat evetl ordcrdated} 14.08.2000 in Fil,,No.^{812753 l!195 rcflects that thr: lineal descendarnts} of thc original Pl'^{tookpossc'ssionof the subjcct arld and it further} rcflccts that the R,::vision^{PeLition|rs hereinfilcda pcl-rlionbelorc the RDO} for issuance of Rcviscd^{or,vnersllillcertihcateundclsection 38-E ol the} Act, l95O ancl Lccorclingll'^{tlrL Revision Petittorlcrs'} l)ossession^was restored. Therelbr-c,^{from Lhealrovc discussions,in the abscnceol chatla} Ramalingam, th,: ioint^{possessiorr of YamireddyNlrraranaReddy,as a PT,} s.ould become^{,.lre sole posscsslon of the Yamircddy NarayanaReddy'} Admittedly the Fievision^{Petitio crs are thc legal heirs of Yamireddy} Narayana Reddlr, and therefori'.^{thcy are the protecled tenants of the} subjcct property, accordingly^{(hc Point No.1is ansu'tred in favour of the} Re vision Petition c ' s.

¶152

¶153

It is not the case of both the parties that in the original^PT Register, it was mentioned that the^{branch of Chatla Ramalingamis} entitled 2/3'd share and^{Yamireddy Naral-ana Rcddy is entitled 1/3'd} share in the subject lands. Such^{being the case, the Joint Collector} without any basis and u,ithout^{anv record,gave a findingthat Chatla} Ramalingam and Yamireddy Naratana Rcddy are^{joint protccted tenants} having right of 213'd share and l/3rri share respectively over the^subject land and therefore, the said finding is contrary to the record. Therefore, Poinr No.2 answcred in favour ol Revisron Petitioners.

¶154

t'7 As seen from thc impugnt:cl ordcr, the ,Join t Collector mainly relied on the follow-ing contentions:-

¶155

a)The reuenue Diuisional Officer ered mate iallg in not issuing any notice to the applicants u.tho are recorded cts a pattedars and cultiuator's of the subject matter of the land before passing the order.

¶156

b)'lhe Tenancy nghts of Challa Ramallngarn. were conuetled into the ownership igitt in the gear 1953-54, bg uay of his purChase the propertA under section 38 of tLe Tenancy Act, Jiom tLe landlord Laxmi Narsamma under the prit'ate sale deed in the geor 1952, therebg the tenancA ights haue been seiz.ed to eits.

¶157

c)After the death of Chatla Ramalingarn. his legal heirs, being ittheited the land from Chatla Ramaltngam, haue alien-aled the land to tLLe uendors of flesponclent lYo. .l & 2 herein u.thereunder the reuision

¶158

petitioners acted as ottestinq u,rifne-sses.

¶159

¶160

.r<j,: I

¶161

d) T-he I\ nglx,; of Yamiredcltt Narayana Reddu ctlso lteert deleted front .final J;roteck^{d tencttcyreoisterin respect o.f lcttid ltt Surueg No.131,} 137 rrs pet I^t'Le ordt-r it fiie No.G/5741/20Ar rtr;ci C./6.3O/ 2013 as a Protecled Tet ant.

¶162

e)')he Reuisiort Petltion<zrs ccu n rot clain more tl(ltt ltctl] share ouer the tenoncy lar,.ct s.

¶163

fl^{The brother:;} ''tf^{the Rr:t.,islor t Petitionersi.e. Yancint ArL ji Reddgalong} tuith the Nor::imha Reddy i'il<zd objection petitiott clciuttirg^{the lenancy} ights held b.1 Yamiredcly I\lrtrct"yan Reddy.

¶164

g)Earlier, tte I?' enLte Diulsirntal Officer^{issued rt 3E l"prttta CeftrJicate} under file \o.1755/ 197'1 pertaining to^{lancl itrSuruey No.131} admeasuirtp Ac.4.l9^{glolt(ts, land} in^{Suruey No.1 .)7 admeasuing} Ac.5.O4 gturlrzs oncl the lattd in Surueg^{No.189adrncasuringAc- 1-30} guntas, tot,1t Ac.11.30 gtt-tfrts as per the orders^{cloted15 12.1990'} therebg the :;econd spelt o.!' lvl certiftcate^{has nct uctlidity in tle ege of} Lau.t.

¶165

h)'lhe Reuisiort Petitioners^{a nci their mothersold the iattd adnteasuing} Ac.1.13 gtu,tas in Surur:11 No.131, Ac.1.13^{grrnlos irtSut-ueg} No.137/A3 .,\c.1.28^quntas in Suruey^{No.137/,\2, Ac.0.O9guntas in} Surueg No.l ) 1/ A2 in fauotLr of ResponderttsNo.^{.l & 2as per the} registered so[e deed dated 23.O2.2001 ond^{registerecl saledeeddated} 10.05.2001.

¶166

i) The Reuenut' .)iuisiort.ctl OfJitar did not^colled for^{spectJ-LcenqtLiry report} from^{TcLhsiktar,Farooq Nugar beforeissuing38'E certificateto} Reuision Pelii ioners.

¶167

¶168

A scrutiny of the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by thc Respondent No.S clearly discloscs Lhat "notices haue been issued^{to all the} interested persons with a direction^to appeor^{in personto adduce euidence} in suppoft of their claim". Such bcing the case,^{the lirst conclusion of the} Joint Collector that no notice was issued is contrary^{to record. Regarding} the next contention that the tenancy righ ts of^Chatla Ramalingam^were converted into ownership rights b1. 11,21' of his purchase and tenancy rights have been seized is perversc, contrary to record and contrary to well settled principte of lau, as, when thc tenants $ant to surrender his land to the landlord, the procedure is contcmplatcd as per the section 19 of the Tenancy Act. In this case no such procedurc rvas followed, the very same contention was urged in the earlier round of litigation, whereunder the Joint Collector in his order datcd 15.09.20OO rcjected and so also the contention of purchase of the land from the original landlady, Laxmi Narsamma under the private sale was also rejected, stating that even if the sale took place, the same is contrary to the procedure as per section 38-D of the Act and the said finding is uphcld by this Court as per the order dated 20.12.2OO7 in CRP No.3935 of 20OO. The Honble Supreme Court in Kotaiah and. another us. Propertg Associaf,ton oJ the Baptist Churches (pvt.) Ltd..t and in the subsequent decision in B. Bat Reddg

¶169

Vs. Teegala Naragana Recldg and others2. held that any sale made contrary to the procedure is not valid, and further held that interesrs of

¶170

'(1989)^3SCC424

¶171

'2Ot6^{(6) ALD 7 (SC)}

¶172

¶173

.--I \i:"::,.. -+#6i;' ..'.,,.... \

¶174

¶175

thc Protc<;tcd Te ri rrL s'or,tlrl con litruc to be operativc so long as lrrotccLc(l Tctlancl, is l-rot Vrtl clly Lertllitlzrtcrl.

¶176

WiLh rcr..zLrd ro lhr: co'rtcnlion of the adoptron b1. Vcr'r-trppa raisccl in thc carlrcr proccedinq:i in file No.B/2753 I 1995 on tlrc lile ol' MRO, F-arooq Nag rr', it is lo be sccn that the same was rc.iected^[)]' thc primarl' authoritv vide orclcrs d:rtLrd 14.08.2O00,^{rvhich u'its conlirrnc<l bv} thc appellatc auth )rity i.er., tlte^,loirtt collcctor^{and uphel(l l>r'this Court ttl} CRP No.3935 ol 2r)00 datcd 12 12 2OO7.^{The Rcspondcrrts No. 1 & 2 at} afii. "o point o1 ime, slatccl^{rrtat 38-tr certificaleu'uLs issucclto thc} vendors oi the R spondcnt No I & 2.^{When aclrnitteclilthc subject} propertJ'is a terit''tcy land,^rvitltout a^{ownership cer(ifir:atc and $ithout} follou,ing Lhc prc('^{(llrre (r()lltem} lliii^{ted under section 38,38-Dallcl 38 E,} any saic made io^{Ihe ve nclrtr of litc RespondentsNo l& 2 is not validso} also the salc marlc to lhc^{llesporlrlcutsNo.1 & 2 is noL virlid on thc count} that no one can con\re)' a^{b('ller title which he isnot posscssed} 'l'hcrcforc, t.hc Rc sltondcnts No. 1 & 2 have no loazs to qucstion the orde r of thc RDO date d 30.09.2O^{14, lrut the Joint Collcctor ignored the said} legal position aLrtl ;et asidc^{the orrlcr.}

¶177

The PT r ights of Yamircddy Narayana^{Rcddvalso beendeleted} from final protec:r-'r,1 tenancy reglstcr in respect^{of lancl in SurveyNo.131,} 137 as pcr the o*der^jn lile No.G/574 ll2OO5 and G,t63012013 as a Protec[ed Tcnant. The Rcvisior l)ctitioners are not partics to the said pfua<edings. In 1a:t, the szrid c()ntention was not argued b-y either of the

J.--J

parties before the Joint Collector, even othcrwisc, if the pT lands of Yamireddy Narayana Reddy have been deleted from thc Tenants'Register, how could the Respondent No.5 in the earlier round u.ould grant 38-E certilicate in the name of Yamire ddy Narayana Rcddl' wife i.e., Smt.Satyamma as per the proceedings dated 15-12-1990 pertaining to the Iand admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Survey No. l3l and land admeasuring Ac.5.04 guntas in Survey No.137. Furthcr, for termination of tcnancy, the procedure is contemplate d under thc Act in terrns of section 19 but no such procedure is followed.

¶182

The record discloses that Yanam Anji Reddl,ancl the legal heir of Yanam Narsimha Reddy, who are thc brothcrs of the revisior.r petitioners, have filed a declaration by way of alficlavit before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, trcqueathing their sharc of la.d in favour of the revision petitioners in their family settlement and the samc was accepted bv the Tahsildar as seen liom the order dated 30.o9.2or4. However, without adverting to the said craim o[ the Revision petitioners and without recording any finding i. relation thereto, the Joint colrector has allowed the appeals under revision. Furthermore, the la,ci covered in the order dated 30-09-2014 and the 3g-E certificare issued under File No.1755/ 1974 in favour of the morher of the 'evision pctitioners as per ttrc orders datecl 15-12-1990 pertain to entirely different land r.e., land irr Survey No.l.31 to the extcnt of Ac.4.l9 quntas, Ac. 5.04 guntas jn Survev No- 137 and Ac.1.30 guntas in Sy. No. 1g9, totalty admeasurrng Ac. I 1.30

gllntas. But t;'rt, ,.loint (tollcr.:,,:- iailed to understan({ thc said lact :rnd camc to crronccLlrj conclLrsioIl tltat the 38-tr certificatr: issucd as per the proceedings datorl 30 09-201.1 rs second certificatc. thercfore the said certificatc is not i alicl. In this lr'gard, it is to bc obscned that originally thc Iar.rd admcirsurirrg Ac.13.37 llLlntas was existing in Suncy No. 131 ancl Iand adlncasurinr. Ac. J5. 12 gLrr,ras was existing in survcl numbcr 137 Tirat as per^(ho 1-r-oceedings clrrti:d 15-12-199O, the ll8-tr ccrtificate t,as issucd in thc rran c of mother ol Rcvision Petitioners fol thc land in S1,. Nos. 131. 137 & 189, adnreastrl ng Ac.4.19 guntas, Ac.5.0,i guntas ar-rd Ac.1.30 gunlzrs rcspcctrvelS'. rotally admeasuring Ac.1l.30^guntas, u'hereas t l-re 38-ll^,:rcrtifica te issLrcd in the name of Rcvision Petitioners as per tllc l)rocccrlinrls datcd 30 t)t) 2Ol4 is with regard to the remaining cxtcr-rt^,rl i.rnd.

¶189

¶190

F urthe:'r rore, lho land sold to the Respondcnts No.l & 2 as per the salc deed date.l 2A-O?--2OO1 and sale deed dated^{lO-O5-20O1 was the} subject propertv ol the lancl covr'rcd under the 38^{E certificate dated15-} 12-1990 issucd ir lhc name of Srnt.SatSramma, the^{motherol the Revision} Petitioncrs and thl said land is rto way concerned wit.h the land covercd undcr the proceed ngs datcd 30 09 2014, issued in the name of Revision Petitioncrs which i-r rnur:h subsr:cluent to the abovc salc transactiot'rs. Thc Respondcnt No.5, rclore issuing .lS-E certificate in favour of the Revision Pctitioncrs, c..rllerl^,he report urrrlr:r letter No.G/22O812013 daLed 2l-122Ol3 a.<i thc lert(.r No.C/23O8,14 dated 06_09_20)4 and the same is

¶191

¶192

also reflects in thc order^passed by^{the RevenueDivisional Officer, dated} 30.09.2014. In^view of the^{abovediscussion, this Court comes to the} conclusion that the Respot. -ent No.S has^{not committedanf irregulartty} while passing the order and therefore, point Nos. 3 & 4 are arnswered in favour of the revision petitioners.

¶193

[n the result, C.R.P. Nos. 256 of 2018 and 492 L>l 2018 are allou,ed setting aside the impugned orders dated 08.12.2O17 in Case Nos. F215689/2017 and Fll99/.2014 respectively, on the lile o1' the .Joinl. Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In view of the findings in the C.R.Ps., the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶194

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶195

Sd/- N. SRIHA ASSISTANT REGIST R

¶196

a //TRUE COPY// SECTION 6^FFICER

¶197

One Fair Copy^{to the Hon'bleSmt. Justice M'G'PRIYADARSINI} (For her LordshiPs Kind^Perusal)

¶198

¶199

'l The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶200