Disposed

Sabavath Devram v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jan 2025WP/27160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A protected tenant sought a mandamus directing the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar to act on his representation for redelivery of possession of agricultural land under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Sadu, directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation after notice to affected persons and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to examine petitioner's representation and pass orders per the Act after notice to interested persons, within three months; no costs.

Sabavath Devram Vs The state of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27160 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sabavath Devram, S/o Late^{Deshya Aged about60 Year, Occ:Agriculture} Fl/o H. No. 3-42, Gummadavelly^{Village Kandukar tt/andal,Ranga Reddy} District

¶9

...WRIT PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I The State of Telangana, represented^{by its Principle SecretaryRevenue} Department, Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional officer,^{Ranga Reddy, Ranga Re$dV District.}

¶13

J The Mandal revenue officer' Kandakur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist}

¶14

4 Smt. Thonta Bhouramma, W/o^{Parvathammalate Aged about50 Year, Occ} Agriculture Fl/o Gummaedivelli^(V) Kandukar^{Mandal Ranga Reddy District}

¶15

...RESPONDENT No.1 to 4

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed theiewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of writ of} iVlandamus, issue a command or^{order,considering inaction,on the Partof} respondent No.3 in Precise, in^{acting on Petitionersrepresentationdated} 11logt2o24, con sequentially, direct^{the respondent No.3 to act on Petitioners} representation, in accordance^{of section 32 of Andhra Pradesh, AndhraPradesh} (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural^{Lands Act,1950, Gonsequentially,to} iake th-e^possession of the^{land, from the respondent No.4, of all that Land,thatis} acre 3.35 Gunta falling^{in survey No.668(now being called as 668/ee) situated at} Gummadavally Village, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under section^'151 cPc^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} direct the respondent^{No.2 and 3, to Place all thatLand, that is acre 3.35 Gunta} falling in survey No.668^{(now being called as 668/ee) Situated at Gummadavally}

¶19

Ranga Reddy District, in Prohibition land and Pass such order and orders as deem fit and Prop,:r in the interest of Justice, as respondent No.4 is tVaking attempts to alienatiorr the above land.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. RATHAN SINGH

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - -

¶23

The Court made ther followirig: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASI{AR REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.2715O of 20124

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed with the foliowing relief

¶28

".--to issue a order or dtrecton more particularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus, Asue a command or order, consideing inaction, on the Paft of respondenl No 3 tt Prectse, in acting on Petition-ers representation dated I1/09/2024, consequentiatlg, direct the respondent No.3 to act on I'etitiotters representation, in accordaru:e of section 32 of Tekrngana TbndrLcA and Agnculturdl Lo"n!1s Act, 1950, consequentidllg, to take the Possession of the land, from the respond.ent No.4 of all that Land, that is acre 3.35 Gunta fatling in sunteg No.66B (\ou beng colled q-s 668/ee) Sttuated. at GummadauallA Vittage, Ranga ReddA Distrbt and pass such order and orders as deem lt and p@per in the tnterest of jushce" .

¶29

Heard the submissions of both the lea-rned counsel and perused the record

¶30

It is stated that the petitioner's grandfather was the protected tenant as per the entries made in the tenancy register maintained under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Tenancy Act"). It is further stated that since their forefathers, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.O3-38 guntas in survey No.668, situated at Gummadavally Village, Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended r. -.-that for surrender of tenancy lands, the protected tenants have to \ -

¶32

¶33

CVBR, J vtp 27160 2024

¶34

admit in u,rjtrng before the Tahsildar and in the absence of the said procedure being followed, the tenants can alrvayt; recover back the p,:rssession by filing appropriate application under Section 32 ol' the Tenancy Act. Learned counsel relied r:pon the Full Bench j udgment of this Court in Sad.q. u. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad. Districtr and strenuously contended that the respondent-I'ahsildar is conferred with thc power of dr.tivery of possession irL t-erms of provisions of Section 32 of the Act,

¶35

It is rclevant to extract Section 32 of the Tenar-rcy Act, which reads as under:

¶36

"32. Prctc<=cl,ure of taking possession:

¶37

(1) A teno.rtt or an agiculturol lcbourer or artisan entiLed to possession of ang land or dutelling Lutuse und.er any of the p.rouision:; ,tf this Act may apptA to the Tahsild.ar in iatin,T in the presctiLted fonn for such possessjon.

¶38

(2) No lanChoLder shnll obtain possession of any land or !tt.ell.t19^{l'Lctuse held bg a tenant exceptund.eran oid.eroJ.the} Tahsildar 1'or which he sLnll apptg in the prescibed form.

¶39

(3) On rec:eipt of an application under sub-section (1) or sub_ section (2.) the Tahsildar shalt, afier LakTing an enquiry p,zss such order thereon as he deems frt.

¶40

(4) Ang person taking possession of any land. or clu.rching house othenttise than in accordance taith the proukions if sub-section (1) or sub-sectton (2), as the case may be, shali, without pre:judice to his liabilitg to the penaltg prouided ln Section 9e;. be liabte to forfeiture of tlte crops, if any, grotun. on

t ntR t988 ap 7z

.a€'

CVBR, J wp-27 L6O_2024

¶45

tlrc tond to the paAment of such^{costs as maA be awardedbg} the Tahsildar or by the CoLLector on^appeal from^{the Tohsildar.}

¶46

A careful reading of the above^{provisionwould reveal that as per} the scheme of the provisions of the^{Act is} to^regulatethe relationship between the landlords^{and the tenantsand it does} not affect the rights inter^{se betweentwo personssetting up} rights of ownership between a^{particular land or a disputes} between owner and trespasser^{other than the tenant' If the} landholder seeks to take^{possession of the land from the tenant} or the protected tenant seeks^{to take possession fromthe} landlord, they can only^{proceed in the manner as prescribed} under Section 32 of the^Act.

¶47

In the case of Sado us. Tahsildar,^{utnoor, Adilabod} District (supra), the Full^{Bench of this Court, observed that the} protected tenant had a right to be^{put.backin possessionunder} Sec. 32 of the Act and^{such protectedtenants, if they had not} otherwise lost their status^{underSec.32or 44 by the notifieddate} would be entitied to ownership^{rights under Sec.38-Eand would} be entitled to the ownership^{certihcate underSec.38-E' In cases} where proceedings under Sec.19^{are pendingon the date of} notification and end in^{favour of the protected tenantthereafter,} the date of vesting gets^{postponed till the said decisionlt was}

¶48

¶49

CVBR, ] wp_2,',760-2024

¶50

further obsen,r:d that the right of protected tenants to recover possession is uninhibited by any principle of adverse possession. trither under the new Limitation Act, 1963 or under r_hc OId Limitation Act^.1908, there is no possibility for the rand horders to invoke either r_he plea of adverse possession [under old Arr..l44 or new Art.65] or the extinguishments of any right [uncLer Old Sec-28 or new Siec. 271. The aforesaid decision makes it ckrar that an application filed seeking restoration of possession by the tenants is maintainable.

¶51

Be that as it may, this Court, without expresslltg any oprnion on t he merits of the case, since it is stated tl rat the petitioner has made a representation to the resp:ndent authorities requesting to take approprlate action irgainst respondent No.,4 and cancel the pattadar passbooks :Lnd to redeliver the p,l5;ss5516n under Section 32 of the Act, and in the absence of opposing the said prayer by the respondent No.4, deems it approDriate to dispose of the writ petition directi ng the respondent - Tahsildar to examine the representation submitted by the petir.iorLer and pass appropriate orders stric:ly in accordance witie the provisions of the Act, after issuing no lice to all persons affecl.ed and interested over the subject property and

¶52

¶53

CVBR, J wp_27160_2024

¶54

communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed

¶56

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶58

shall stand closed

¶59

SD/- T. TIRUMALA^DEVI A S ANT REGISTRAR

¶60

//TRUE^COPY//

¶61

CTION OFFICER

¶62

To.'-'1. Th" Principle Secretary Revenue Department' The^{state of Telangana'} Secretariai^{Buildings' Hvderabad'}

¶63

1. i;;'R;";;"^{oiui.lonuiJF""iFiansa Reddv'.RanoaReddv District'} 3. The Mandat^{,"r"nu"'oihf";,ruffik"'; n'linoli'.n*-"g''ReddvDist} ;. d;'cc'ilsRiM.^{RAinAr't struen,Advocate[oPUC]} ;. i;; d6.i"-cp^{Fon nHVeNue.High courtfoi the state of relangana'} touTl

¶64