The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the petitioners : SRI K ASHOK REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : SRI K RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos..l l & 1j : Gp FOR ARBITRATION CIVIL REVISION PE TITION NO: 957 O F 1994 Petition under Section 9.1 of the A.p. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculturar Lands Act, 1950 against tne orol,. ou\u"ii+_oz_rs94 passed in case No.C3iJClTA/25l93 on the fite 6f the L"i"tE"rr""i*lr.tatgonda. Between: 'l . Banda Abraham (Died) as per LRs 2. Sowraiah, S/o Abraham, (Died as per LRs) ' R;,31?l'Bi?i?,li t'" Abraham' R/o' Bahaduroet virage, '5J1i',r#/i"^hi;"{',?,1"1'"f Y#i.,,[?ii,,#l h Kumar, S/o. Late Venkateswar Rao, R/o. 51_81_124, gar, Jyothi Chiken Centre, vaniiinariii'rr;1," H;r;Hnagar,

5. SAtkoori Nares Sachivalava Na R.R. District.

4. Satkoori Hemalatha. I -Hteua,.?r?"fi . s1-E,1-124. Hayathnagar, Alair Mandal, tl Satkoori, S.wathieswari, D/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, I h irumala Nagar Alma'sguda, Saroornag;;, n.i{ biiiriit R:/o. Plot No. 384, )- 7 Satkoori Vikram, S/o. LAte Venkateswara Rao' R/.o' 51-81-124' Sachivalaya Naoar. Jvothi Chiken Centre]' V;;"";tli;lip'Iam' Hayathnaoar' R R District' pF 41o-7 are brought on |.Jiolo''11'[H;""f id'oeitriseo P1 as per c.o. dt. b.g.zozz in lA No. 3 of 2022) ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Respondents AND Barma Lingaiah died per L.Rs Respondent Nos' 2 to 4 1 . Chittimalla Sathaiah S/O Narayana aged about 60 years 2. Chittimalla Barma Beeraiah S/O Lingaiah, aged about 45 years 3. Chittimalla Kistaiah S/O Lingaiah, aged about 30 years 4. Chittimalla Mallaiah S/O Lingaiah, aged about 25 years 5. P. Anjaiaha S/O Chandraiah aged about years 6. P. Satyanarayana S/O Chandraiah 7. P. Raju S/O Chandraiah B. Rulla Chinna Sailu S/O lYlaiah' o All are Agriculturists and R/O Bahadurpet village' Alair lr'4andal' Nalgonda district ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RAGHUVEER REDDY CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO:15 21 oF 1994 Petition under section 91 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy^and ngri"urtui;i LanJs Act, toSo agiinst the O^rd.er dated 04-04-1994 Passed in Case 'frii.Ciliclrnlz 3192 onthe file of the Joint Collector' Nalgonda' Between:

1. Mahaboob Ali, S/o Syed Hussain (Died as per LR Nos 2 & 3) 2. Syed Moula Ali S/o Late Mahboob Ali (died per LRs 4 to 7)' 3. Khasim Bee, D/o. mahaboob Ali, Fl/o. Bahadur village, Alair Mandal, nalgonda District. Petitioners No.2 & 3 are impleaded. as LRs of the deceased P1 as per co' le.i.zooo in cRPMP No. 3723/2ooo) 4. Palan Fatima Bee, D/o' mahaboob Ali' F/o' Ahnrad nagar' Doulathabad 5. sved Muneer Khatoon w/o Late syed Moula Ali, s/o Mahaboob Ali (Died as 6. Patan Masthan Bee, D/o. Mahaboob Ali' F/o Ahmad Nagar' Doulathabad mandal, Medak District. per LRs r 13 TO 19)' mandal, Medak District. + ' i,[?i, 1",:'r1ir:'",?"3':r&r6i0g k Bl,?,Ari, R:/o L r G 482, Ap H B co ro ny, t 9. Patan Yousuf Khan. S/c (Petitioners No.4 to 7 are brought on record as as per court order dated oz-r r _iiiidijr.rl,i."r,i".i-.,rl$.r oJ the deceased p2 3:illo:3'*i313,,13%ffi*D/o' Patan Fatima Bee, R/o. Ahmad Nagar, Malkajgiri [\4andal, vt"o.iI"t'n Fatima Bee' R/o Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, (PP 8, I are brouqht or io.ti.zoit'in1A";";ii;iii"ord as LRs of the deceased P4 as per c.o. dt. AND

4. o. ..Petitioners Khamampalli yerra yadaiah, S/o Durgaiah Khamampalli yadaiah, S/oRajaiah, Yaspari ltaiah, S/o Abbaiah (died per LRRT), Vaspari Bheeraiah, S/o Abbaiah (Died per LRs RR 8, 9), Vaspari Mallaiah S/o Abbaiah (Died per LRs RR 10 to 12), Y,H%1ii RliSilT Bi:,iJo' Abba iah, Arr are R/o. Bahad urpet Viilage, Ara ir

7. Vaspari Santhamma, Wo. LAte Vaspari llaiah. Rl/c virr;!;, Ar;ii'M;r05, iuorori, Bhonsir, Nargonda r' DNo '1-72'1, Bahadurpet .

8. Vaspari Yadamma. W/o. LAte Vaspari Beeraiah, RJo. D. No. .1_7711 Bahadurpet Vi,age, Atair M;"otrlVrirlii'aiiiiilriir,"rvr'rg,;;d; DiJd-tt. 9. Vaspari Swamv. S/o I ate Vasqqri Beeraiah, Rl/o. D. No. 1-71/1 , Bahaduroet 10.Vg.spari fVlallamma, Wo. Late Vaspari MAllaiah. R/ Vittase, Atair Mandat, vaJaori, Erron's"ii' iilijJi& bi.tri"t vil;-s;, Ai;i, Nirnibi'f"orori, Bhongir, Natsonda 3"?,.f" 2-7e, Bahadurpet 1 1. Vaspari Kumara swamv. D/o. Late Vaspari Mallaiah, R/o. D. No. 2-7g. Bahadurpet virase, Ardii Mi"Jri, vli"Joii, ii'fftil Nargonda District. l2.Vaspari Srinivas. S/o. I ate r/gspgri Mallaiah, Rl/o. D. No. 2_79, Bahaduroet vittage, Ata ir Manda t, vaoaori Errongii,'iiliejoij"'oi.tri.t. (RR 7 to 12 are brouoht ol-rqc. o-rd as Lrs of the deceased R3, R4, R5 as per c.o. dt.10.12.2oi1in te i/ztii 't R'Ii,oo!"Yr:1if,tH:%:L%%YByl'o", Rr/o H No. 11-6-523,KH Market, " 8f8!,if,:e',3J3 3Ji: 1' fil#rXltfl,fll,jl?.tl?%y65ra Ari, Rro H No 1r-6-523, KH Market, Moura Ari, Rr/o H.No. 11-G-I23,KH Market, Namparry, R',#r:iir:?,'r#;,tJ:otr#o%"0'1ra Ari, R/o H No. 11-6-523, KH Market, I I ->

17.lvlohd. Nusrat, D/o Syed MoulaAli, Fl/o H'No' 11-6-523' KH Market' Nampally, HYderabad - 500 001.

18.Sved Parveen, D/o Syed Moula Ali, Fl/o H'No 11-6-523' KH Market' N'ampallY, HYderabad - 500 001 ' '19.Sved Hvder Ali, S/o Syed Moula Ali, R/o H No 11-6-523' KH Market' NimpallY, HYderabad - 500 001. (RR 13 to 19 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased P5 as per 'c.o. dt.10.11.2022inlA No. 3 of 2022.)

20. The tahsildar, Alair, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District ' 21.The Joint Collector, NALGONDA DISTRICT^/ADRADRI BHUVANAGIRI DISTRICT. (R20 and 21 are lmpleaded as per C'O, DT' 1110812023in lA.No.1 of 2023.

22. Shaik Janimiya, S/o. Abdul Razak, aged 75 yrs, 23. Sulthana, W/o. Late Shaik Azizulla, aged 60 yrs' 24.Khasim Bee, W/o. Khaja Mohinoddin, aged 70 yrs' AII are Ryo' Bahadurpet Village, Alair tvlandal, yadadri Bhongir (RR 22 to 24 are impleaded as per c'o' dt' '10'9'2025 vide.lA No' 2 of 2023 in CRP No. 1521/1994) ...ResPondents Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.3 to 5 : SRI D SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.6,7 & 8 : SRI K RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 : SRI K RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos'20 & 21 : GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos'22 to 24 : M/S' D Y N L N CHARYULU The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER n I ; I : I I l I i I I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CfVIL REVI SION PETITION Nos .956, 957 and 152 t of 1994 COMMON ORDER: Since all these Civil Revision petitions are remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme court arising out of the common order dated 05.08.201O passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6489, 6490 and. 649I of 2OO3 for recording a finding whether there was arry satisfaction of the Ta_trsildar in connection with the a-lleged relinquishment, they are analogously heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2 Civil Revis ton Petition No.95 6of 1994t This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dated 2I.O2. 1994 passed in Case No.C3lJClROR/t/93 by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda (for short, ,the appellate Authority,). By the impugned order, the appellate Authority has set aside the order dated 19.0g.19g3 passed in Case No.6 of I9T9 by the Tahsildar, Alair (for short, .the primary Authority). J Civil Revision Petition No.957 of 1994: This Civit Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dated 14.02.1994 passed in Case No.C3lJClTA /25/g3 by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda (for short, .the appellate AuthorityJ. By 2 cNL REvtStoN PETI\I1N Nos-956' 957 and 7521 of )991 the impugned order, the appellate Authority has set aside the orderdated19.08.1983passedinCaseNo.lof|979byL]ne Tahsildar, Alair (for short, the primary Authority)' Civil Revision Petition No. 1521 of L9942 This Civil 4 Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dated 04.04.1994 passed in Case No'C3/JCITAl23 192 by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda (for short, the appellate Authority')' By the impugned order, the appellate Authority has set aside the order dated 19.08.1983 passed in Case No'2 of 1979 by the Tahsildar, Alair (for short, the primary Authority')' For the sake of convenience' hereinaJter' the parties will

5. be referred to as arrayed before the appellate Authority' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the 6. protected tenants of the lald bearing Survey Nos' 45' 46 (hinjumle), 109, 110, 111, 118' 120 and 12L (minjumle)' situated at Bahadurpet village' Taluk Alair' In the year 1975' the respondents, in collusion with the patwari of the village' illegally occupied the schedule lands' Since the respondents are not vacating the schedule lands, the petitioners approached the primary authority for restoring their possession in respect of the schedulelarrdsandalsofiledcopyofpanchanamaand38-E 3 CML REVISKTN pE nON Nor.OrU, n r.*,rr, "ff.ii ownership certificate in support of their case. It is alleged that though the petitioners relinquished their rights as protected tenants, their names were not deleted from the records of the protected tenart register. The primar5r authority, having observed that the petitioners are protected tenants and certificate holders of ownership which was issued under Section 3B-E of the Tenancy Act after conducting panchzrnama in respect of the schedule lands, concluded that the respondents are illegal occupants of' the schedule lands and ordered to restore the possession of the schedule laads to the petitioners by evicting the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents approached this Court in W.p.Nos.7424 of |gg3,2445,2446 and, 7253 0f 1gB3' wherein this court disposed of the writ petitions grvlng opportunity to the writ petitioners/respondents to file appeals before the competent authority. Accordingly, the respondents approached the appellate authority, wherein, the order passed by the primaqr authority was set aside. Hence, the present revision petitions. 7 This Court uid.e common order dated 06.12.1999 and order dated 31 .l2.lgg9 dismissed the Civil Revision petitions. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners filed Civil Appeal Nos.6489, 6490 and 6491 of 2003 before the Hon,ble Supreme 4 CML REWSoN PEUIION Nos'956, 9s7 dnd t s21 oI 1ee4 Court, wherein, these revision petitions are remanded to this Court for recording a frnding whether there was aly satisfaction of the Tahsildar in connection with the alleged relinquishment. Heard Sri' Ashok Reddy, D'suresh Kumar and Sri Kotta 8. Raghavendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No'2 as well as learned Government Pleader for Arbitration ald Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel and Sri DYLN Char5nrlu, learned counsel for respondents' Perused the material available on record. l,earned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted g . that the petitioners are protected tenants and it is not disputed by the respondents. He further submitted that the when the ownership certihcate was issued under Section 38-E of ttre Tenancy Act, they cannot be dispossessed under any circumstalces and as such, the primary authority has rightly ordered for restoring their possession from the respondents' However, without considering the same' the appellate authority has erroneotlsly passed the impugned orders' Hence' he prayed the Court to allow these Civil Revision Petitions' I i :,/ / I I 5 Cfv'IL REWSrc,\ PETfuON Nos-956, 9 SZ ond 1 52 I ;f;i

10. On the other harrd, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the rmpugned orders passed by the appellate Authority and a_fter going through the. record, the appellate Authority held that the protected tenancy was duly surrendered and thus, the protected tenants relinquished their rights in favour of the land lords. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Civil Revision petitions. 1 1. Learned Government pleader for Arbitration submitted the relevalt tenancy record showing that except Sri Madani Shouraiah, there is no evidence of the relinquishment of tenancy rights by other protected tenants. He further submitted that Sri Madarri Shouraiah has filed the surrender petition on 14.08.1969 before the concerned authorities relinquishing his tenancy rights voluntarily over the schedule lands and handed over the vacant possession to the landlords and that the proceedings was continued.

12. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this court has perused the materiai e'iclence available on record. It is appears that no satisfaction is recorded by the Tahsildar with regard to the surrender of the tenancy rights by the protected tenants. Further, record filed blr the learned 5 clr'lL RI'\-IiI2N PgfIfON Nos-956 957 onil 1521 oI t99a Government Pleader for Arbitration shows that except Sri Madani Shouraiah, there is no record available in respect of the other protected tenants' Therefore' when there is no record to show that the protected tenants were surrendered their tenancy rights, the landlords carnot sold the schedulLe lands to the third parties without giving any notice to the protected tenants' It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the petition for the surrendered has to be submitted at least a month before the commencement of the year one year' However, the surrender petition is not submitted before the year ending i.e., 31"t of May' Therefore' the surrender petition filed by Sri Madani Shouraiah on 14'08'1969 is not within the prescribed time and the same is not valid" Going through the said contention, as per Section 19(1)(a) of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Land's Act' 1950 (for short' the Act') the tenant shall surrender his rights to the land hoider at least a month beforethecommencementoftheyear.Further,section2s\of the Act says that ,,Year,, means ana aear ending on the 3oth dag ofJuneoronsuchotherdateasGouernmentmag'bgnotiJication in tlrc Official Gazette appoint for anA area' There is no evidence on record to show that Government notifred any date for commencement of year, in the absence of the same' the tenant 7 clr'Il REVIST,' pETf,oN Nar.Oru, ,rr.* ,rr, ,rf{ii, has to file appiication before 3l"t May as rightly contended by the revtslon petitioner.

13. Further, surrender of tenalcy is contemplated in Section 19 of the Act which reads as follows:

19. Termination of tenancy. Not tLtith-standinq anu aot LU :,";:::tri;i!;iii!:z;tr"#"#:{;,"ff :":;#,::?$,"::';:{":{ ra,,dt,rea.e)'oi'a;;:;;;i"Tl";Ji":,:^[trlif [,;i:reriorlrorwhict,thz All p y1 tenant bg surrenrTer of his rights to the landholder at teast a ,nonth before the cnmtne oI thc gcar: lsubstitutPd bs Act no.ut o1 tvst.ldiu',ii ,7"u"'Ii,""^ent is nacte bs the tenont in utnttns rort *';i.;;;1 ii'nil',n ""'-""d.et sor,isjoer ior t. "r,if i"itii" i," :, "1:;;,:;i,; :;:i h,),^,::;^: rulltuatc,l iointlA ba ioint tenonts .or. members of an unclruid"d Htadu fT:t;::,i;7','::n"ili",!::,^*,.-,"': bs ott or thea.ii'.i,ii'[!ii"r"",,. :17:;d:.;;;;;;;;,:;';',;';:.,tr:,i;;::l:::,r,;f ,^!,.f :nl;:::X!:: not mentrcned in the certifrcatel; ^::i;";" !!2)bg the landholder on a ground. specifed in subsection (2). 'l'he landholder mqg terminate a tenanc]J on the gr<ruad. that the a) terLqnL- "t. fu)l hos failed to pa4 in anu ueor, tuithin ftfieen dogs lrom tl@ daa j u e d,u n d.e r ft h e Te t a n s o n a- LIa n<i R. u. n u i A u t 7- rl ii i it "i" i; O.O.Ms.No.46, Lau (F) DeDartt p a y n e n r o s r i e i;, ; ; i, ;;;;,' :; i\,X" !ii. !,i ;ti,? i: ! #,, ::: ::,:::.i.d in thar sea4 lsubstitutect ba a.t xr.ti.)i1."J i",Li n,"t oJ such lond Ior Lhat g.",, *1ii1it'or'ip)t;irri";-;:;,,:;Z d., t, rmi.narion of reosonabtp int is peniing o"lii. ,i iii""ri ,1, thp (-ollector under section t 7 ho_s Iate& ili""tr' *i,i.ii,, i!, !1Us from the olorpsatd dok u,im the Tribunat or Lhc cdtta-t^. -- t.( t'use moA be, o sum eouol to the anount of re;t- ,:::,1.y* bcen tiahte to pqs fot.that sr", tf ; n.oa, t)een ".'.""ti,r-"iiii:";i.:, .mode: or(iii)in ca.se thp ,eosonobl" *., a\i"r ir") tulcler section ]7 is hiqher than Jattcd to pdg th.e b.,lance due ,rn.'Y "uT.,otoosited bg him has 'a,*.tin"'a."*ii'"l,ti'r'nlii,,Xii!,';:*":i;"i;?,,,k{fr^"*; mdll be; or -;;i;h, -r"' lb)lLas done ang act tthictl ts des to the land; or :tructiue or pemanentla injuious lg)lto.s sub-diuided tlrc land; or l-dlhos sublet the tand or failed to nas oss{,ned ang int"r""r thrr.in;Trliuale ft)has used such land fa aqn ruttu re : l pr o uid.o' i n "ii,i * "L",{" o f, the l(.nd personolly, or "fo",Tii"o.,i,ff i,",lfi,i 8 cF.,lL REZISION PtfmON Nos-956, 957 ann t 52 I of 1994 slall be l-ermin@ted orl anV of th'e ground-s mentioned-tn thi's sub section unless tte landlallrlir gruJs sk months nodce' in uiting intimattn1 his decislrrn to irrlLi'otn lh'e tPnoncA and the growlds rcrmirntionl lsiistituLed ba Act No tfi of . -1954'l; ;;; ;; tlkil.ii,lo"i'ii'n*,1 1s"rcliit"a bs icr No ttt oI les4 l.thot the i)trini, of ,Lnant whtt,-(a)is o 1"iale o' a minor' orh)k subiect f'";;;.i"i ;'";"..oi 'a'iiuiti'v' or(c)is scruins in .the. Nauat' Militaru or Air Fotr::s o1 inai',"snoti nol be detennined on the 'i)",ii ."la that the land comp'rised in the Lenonca has been sub let bg or on behalf of such tenanl' ThP te.nrrncu of a tenant lnlding a lease ta tuhich section 17 t?t 7l p"ttitr ,"J ii ia No.tlt of t 95a l I applies sholl terminate'' l@[ omitted;] [omitted bg Act N {XIII of 1951 ] lb)where the landholder is a person tDha' hauing.,serued. in lhe *ni''rli, uitiro,y o' air Fois of India' in good laith requires the if"i ia)'i,.'i""t *l.,uariin oi rte tetminotion of suc.h^seruice' on th.e expiration of the Aear in uhich such person giues notice it ,f,ari"i i" li" *i"nt tiat tle tenancg i-s terminoted; or E)on lhc frrsl d.ly of Marctt' lo51 in o eose in whbh a Person 3< ti be a p'otecled lenont i-s enli ed und'er 1J"ia ,na.' secfibn Jo lo red)uer possession of the land on thal daA' ""ition (verbatim reProduced) L4. As per the proviso of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act' the surrender made by the tenant must be in writing and admitted by him before the Tahsildar and also made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar' Thus' the moot question to be decided in the present civil revision petition is whether the Tahsildar recorded any satisfaction or not' Perusal of the record Iiled by the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration does not reveal any satisfaction recorded by the Tahsildar' That apart fecordShowsthatonlyonetenanti.e.,sriMadaniShouraiah filed the said surrender petition and proceedings further shows that 'the applicant maA be ittformed to produce the lalding of tle pattedar and tlrc file maA be closed'' 9 1NIL REWSI.N pEfn.ION No" "rU, "rr.* ,"", ;f:i

15. Pertinently, there is no record to show that the Tahsildar has accepted the surrender petition and as such, the 1andlords cannot sell the schedule lalds of the protected tenalts to the third parties. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstarces, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.

16. Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions are a_llowed setting aside the orders d.ated, 2l.O2.lgg4, 14.02.1994 and 04.O4.1994 passed rn Case Nos.C3/JCIROR/ t/93, C3/JC/TA/25193 and C3/JCfiA/23/92 by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, confirming the orders dated 19.Og.19g3 passed in Case Nos. 1, 2 and 6 of 1979 by the Tahsildar, Alair. There sha_Il be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPYII S /. MOHD. ISMAIL E UTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda 2. One CC to SRt K ASHOk REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. one cC to SRTAKKAM esuWan, nJv"""i" i5pucf 4. One CC to SRt D SURESH Kurrlnn, no-vocltl-fopUCt 5. one cc to M/s. D y Nl.I.g!4iirjLu, njr".lL fopuct 6. rhree cc to sRt K RA_cI.u^y_E+ Ri6y;;;;te [opUC] 7. One CC ro SRt KoTrE RAGHVTNDRA;Rdffi, Advocate topucl B. One CC to SRt RADHA rnlsnrrrn, novt"ri"ioEUcf 9. Two CCs to the cp FoR nne[RAriON, Hi;A;;rd for the State of - iO Two CD Cooies YY Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) - '' I rivrr vv HIGH COURT DATED:10 t09t2025 COMMON ORDER .( ]: .' .. -.\ - i rr i.. . ::., i.,- 0 tr 0[r 208 CRP.Nos.956, 957 and 1 521 of tgg+ \. \{'- ,.i,_i' ALLOWING ALL THE CRPs WITHOUT COSTS , .daF &,