The High Court · 2025

8. Pandem Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Pandem Ananth Reddy, Occ Agriculture and Business, RJo. Vijayanagar Colony, Shadnagar Town, Mahaboobnagar District.

9. A Chennaiah Goud (died), '10. Nakkala Poornachander Goud, S/o RamuluGoud, Occ Agriculture and Busrness, RJo Raikal Village, Presently residing at Shambashiva Colony, Shadnagar Town, Mahaboobnagar District. 1 1 . A.Jangamma, W/o. Late Chennaiah Goud, Occ Household, Rt/o. Chetanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

12.lvl.Alivelu, W/o Balraj, Occ Housewife, Rl/o. Kollapadkal Village, Maheshwaram Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

13.A.Srinivas Goud, S/o Late Chennaiah Goud, Occ Business. R/o Chetanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District

14.A.Pandu, S/o Late Chennaiah Goud, Occ Business. R/o Chetanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

15.A.Pushpamma, Wo Parandhamulu Goud, Occ Business, FJo. Chennampally Village, Thalkondapally Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

16. A. Raghavender Goud, S/o. Late Chennaiah Goud, Occ Legal Practitioner, Ryo Chetanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. (The respondent Nos. 6 to 16 are not necessary parties for this CRP)

17.P. Purna Chander Reddy, S/o. Late P. Janardhan Reddy, aged 45 years, Ryo. 506Gf\.4R Enclave, Rajenderanagar, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

18. P. Ranyith Reddy, S/o. Late P. Janardhan Reddy, aged 35 years, Rl/o. 7-3- 1, lndustrial Estate, A.P, lndustries, Mahaboobnagar District.

19.P Satyadeep Reddy, S/o. Late P. Janardhan Reddy. aged 44 years, R/o. APIIC-LIG-23, lndustrial Estate, Mahaboobnagar District. (RR 17 to 19 are brought on record as LRs ofthe deceased R5 as per Court Order dated 11.11.2024 in l.A No. 112024) ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP. NO: 5289 0F 2014) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned proceedings in case No.t(558/2010, daled 12.03.2012 and the consequential orders in Appeat No.F 1/lA-07/201 2. F11528112012, dt.27 -09-2014 issued by the Joint Coilector at Mahaboobnagar, including alienation of the land by the respondents 4 & 5 pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Arnav representing M/.s Pillix law firm Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 10 to '16 :Sri A. Raghuram Mahadev Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 17 to 19: Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 to 8: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HOIIOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CTWL REWSION PETITI ON No.3879 of 2014 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is hled by the petitioners against the order of Joint Collector in Appeal No.F1/IA_ 07/2Ol2,Fl/5281 /2012 wherein, the Joint Collector allowed the petition of respondents 4 and 5 herein declaring them as legal heirs of protected tenant and also declared that they are entitled for issualce of ownership certificate in respect of land in Sy.No. 177 to an extent of 5.25 guntas of Solipur village of Farooqnagar Mandal. Aggrieved by the said order the present revrslon petition is fiIed.

2. Heard Sri Arnav, learned counsel representing the office of Pillix Law Firm, appearing for the petitioners, Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 77 to 19 who are the legal heirs of respondent No.S and Sri A.Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1O to 16.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the Joint Collector has no right to decide the i 2 issue of legal heirs of the protected tenant and the Sfr respondent herein is not declared as adopted son and there is a serious dispute that there is another person by name Srinivas Reddy is the legal heir of protected tenant for which the original paltedar filed suit for declaration against the legal heir of protected tenant Srinivas Reddy and when the suit is pending, the matter has been settled between the parties. Thereafter, both of them sold the land through AGPA, even though Sfr respondent herein is not declared as adopted son ald no material is produced to show that he is the adopted son and is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is adopted son of protected tenant. The order cancelling the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners is beyond the scope of his power, the 2nd respondent is not competent to cancel the registered sale deeds, since there is serious title dispute and legal heir dispute, the 2"d respondent instead of allowing petition hled under Section 38-A of A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 195O, he would have directed the parties to approach the civil Court for adjudication of the same. As such, the order impugned is contrary to lau, and prayed to set aside the same directing the parties to approach civil Court. W:7 3

4. l,earned counsel for respondents 10 to 16 is also sailing with petitioners and respondents 17 to 19 who are the Iegal heirs of respondent No.5 also submitted that the Court below has no power to decide the issue of legal heir of protected tenant. As such, they prayed this Court to direct the parties to approach the competent civil Court.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parLies, the order impugned is set aside and the parties are directed to approach the competent Court for deciding the issue of legal heirs of the protected tenant.

6. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY// Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To DL

1. The Joint Collector at lvlahaboobnagar. 2. One CC to M/.s Pillix law firm, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri A. Raghuram Mahadev, Advocaie [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy,Advocate 1OeUCl 5- Two CD Copies (r CTION OFFICER HIGH COURT SKS,J OATEDi21t01t2O2s ORDER CRP.No.3879 of 2014 .{HE STA ( I L + o o 24 FEB 2025 ' )r// -t Cr sont ,'*€! ALLOWING THE C.R.P U 7rt;t'i i I I I