The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.5O3 of 2OO9 ORDER: Challenging the order dated O2.08.2008 passed in Case No.Fl/O3/2001 by the Joint Collector at Mahabubnagar, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners / appellants claimed rights over land measurrng Ac.14 2L guntas in Survey No.13 of Udandapur Village, Jadcherla Mandal. It is submitted that the original protected tenant (P.T.) of the land was Kurva Beerappa, father of petitioner No- 1 / appellant No. 1 , and that he was issued an ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is contended that a registered sale deed (Doc.No. 166/77 dated 05-02-19771 allegedly executed by Beerappa in favor of respondents No-3 and 4 (sons of one Bhagiratha Bai) was forged. The appellants claimed that Beerappa had only daughters and.never sold the land, asserting that the sale deed was created fraudulently by impersonation. The 2 sl{s,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 petitioners requested the restoration of possession and 'annulment of the sale deed, as per Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, which renders certain sales void rvithin 8 years of ownership rights being conferred

3. On the other hand, respondents No.3 and 4 stated that the sale was lawful and made by the rightfurl P.T., Kurva Beerappa (4. Siddapuram Beerappa S/o Yeltaiah, not Kurva Beerappa S/o Balaiah, through whom the appellants were claiming. lt is further stated that the appellants were not legal heirs of the original P.T. and therefore lackecl locus standi. They also emphasized that they had been in continlrous possession since the sale in 1977 and that the appellants had not challenged the rejection of their application to amend the P.T.'s name in the revenue records.

4. Upon examrnation of the records and contentions, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal holding that ownership rights in respect of the suit land were conferred on Kurwa Beerappa S/o Yellaiah, the original P.T., under Section 38-E with effect from 01-01-1973. It was further noted that the sale to respondents No.3 and 4 was executed on 05-02-1977 3 SKS,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 for Rs.10,000 /- and possession was delivered accordingly. The Joint Collector observed that the appellants failed to produce substantial evidence proving dispossession in the year 1974 or to establish a Iegal heirship link with the rightful P.T. The claims questioning the authenticity of the sale deed were deemed civil in nature and advised to be pursued before a competent Civil Court- Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Mohd. Gulam Rasool, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Joint Collector is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the established provisions of .[aw under the A-P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. He further submitted that the Joint Collector failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 32 of the Act and dismissed the application arbitrarily without properly appreciating the legal and factual aspects of the case arrd that, 4 SKS,J C.R. P.No.503 of 2Oo9 under Section 32, a Protected Tenant cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, and any such dispossession must be preceded by an order from the Tahsildar. [n the instant case, the respondents failed to follow the prescribed procedure and did not produce any evidence to prove law{ul dispossession, relying rnerely on a registered sale deed purportedly executed by t he protected tenant.

7. Learned counsel for the petrtioners contended that under Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, anlz alienation or transfer of land by a Protected Tenant within eight vears from the date of conferment of ownership rights under Section 38-E is null and void. [n the present case, the registered sale deed set up by the respondents rvas admittedly execu.tr:d rvithin this prohibited eight-year period, rendering the transaction void in law. He further contended that, as per the stiitute, it is the duty of the Government to resume possession of such land and restore it to the Protected Tenant or tht:ir legal heirs- Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the Joint Collector by allowing this Civil Revision Petition. 5 SKS,J c.R.P.No.503 of 2OO9

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ponam Bai and Others v. A. Jameer Bhikkut, wherein in paragraph No.6, il is held as under: "6. In the decision reported rn Usharvna v. Sarnbu Goud [985 (3) APLJ 32.] it was held: that any sale held in contravention of the provisions of the Act, in that case Sec. 38-D is void. An agreement of salc as berng opposed to public policy to defeat the provisions of Sec. 38 D also is void u/s 23 of thc Contract Act. So any alrenation made in contravention of Sec. 38 D shall havc to be declared to be nu[[ and void. In Choudari Rama v. Qureshi Bee {1983 (2) ALT i33.1 it was held that even a decree for ejectment of a protected tenant by civil court was declared to be void and inexcusable as againsl the protectcd tenant.

7. Therefore the necessary conclusion is that any permanent alienation withrn the statutory period provided under the Act is absolutely void and opposed to public policy and therelore it is not binding on the parties. When such is the situation the question that arises is, whether the statutory, authonty while exercising its power under the Act can give recognition to the compromise said to have becn entered into betlveen the parties agreeing to give up the protected tenancy rights in respect of a part of the holding for which he is entitled to under ' tgsa (r) lrr s: (s.s) 6 SKS,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 the protected tenancy certificate. As the compro mise is opposed to the pubiic policy and the alienation sought to be made is a permanent alienation and opposed to the provisions of the Act the Tribunal cannot give any recognition to such a compromise and the compromisc also is void u/s 23 of the Contract Act."

9. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prabhulingan v. Y. Ramaiah and Ors2, wherein in paragraph No-8, it is held as under: "Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act contemplates issuance of ownership certificate in favour of the protected tenants. The respondents are clatming issuance of such ownership certificate u/s. 38 E in the present case relating to the disputed land The petitioner herein is a third party claiming title to the disputed land by adverse possession, as already stated above. Scction 99 of thc Tcnancy Act which bars the jurisdiction of Crvil Courts is as follon s: "99. Bar of Jurisdiction:- (1) (Save as provrded in this Act) no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Governmcnt. 'tggz (s) ero gz 7 SKS,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 (2) No order of the Tahsildar, TribunaL or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court."

8. The dispute in the present case, ai already stated above, is between the persons who are claiming ownership rights as protected tenants and a person who is a third party claimrng rights to the same land by adverse possession. Such disputes cannot be settled, decided or dealt with by the concerned tribunals under any provisions of this Act as it is not a dispute bet\t'een a person claiming rights as protected tcnant and thc original owner of the land. In the Full Bench dccision of this Court reported in Sada v. Tehsildar, Utnoor (supra), on which the learned counsel for the respondents trics to rely upon, the main points that arose for consideration are, whether the protected tenant !t'ho was out of possession on tlte notilled date can claim ownership certificate under the provisions of Section 38-E and whcthcr the land holder can plcad and provc adverse possession bcforc rhe statutory Tribunals under thc Act as against a protected tenant who was out of possession. [t was obscr-ved by their lrrdships that cven if the protected tenant was not in actual possession of the land on thc date of the notilication issued under Section 38-E, he cart as well claim ownership certificate under the said provrsions of the Act. It was also further held that the plea of adverse possession cannot bc raised against such a protected tenant by the land holder. It is clear from a perusal of thc sard decision that the dispute in that case was onl]./ betwcen the 8 SKS,J C.R.P.No.503 of 2009 original land holder and the protected tenanr of such land holder. When the dlspute is onl, betq'een such protected tenant and the land holder, the plea of adverse possession cannot be raised by strch land holder and the claim of the protected tenant lor issuance of ownership certificate under Sectlon 38- E of the Act can bc accepted even if he was out of possession by the date of issuance of the rcle\.ant notificiition. In the present case, as alreadv stated above, the dispute is only betu.een the respondents rvho are claiming rights in the disputed Iand in their capacity as protected tenants, and also unrlcr a rcgistcrcd salc deed sald to have been exccutccl in thcir favour by thc original land holder on thc one hand, and the pctitioner who is a third party clarming title to the disputed Iand by way of .rdverse posscssion on thc other hand. The petjtloncr is speciflcally disputing the title of the respondcnts for the eastern half of the Sy. No: 1 and claiming title to the said land on the basis of acquisition of sucl.r titlc b1' adverse possession. Inasmuch as such dispute bctwecn them cannot be settled, decided or dealt u'ith by any of the Tribunals under the Acl , thc jurisdiction of thc Civil Courts to dccrdc such disputes is not taken away by Section 99 of the Tenancy Act and such disputes, which arc oI civil nature can be decided only by the regular Civil Cou rts, "

10. He further re11ed upon the judgmenr of the Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Narayauamma and Another v I 9 sI(s,J C.R.P,No.5O3 of 2OO9 Govindappa and Others3, wherein it was held that the grant of the suit property was made rn the year 1983, and the transfer in question took place in 1990, which falis within the prohibited non-alienation period of 15 years. Therefore, the agreement executed during this period is illegal, being hit by Section 61 of the Act. The Court further held that both the predecessor-in-title and the plaintiff are equally responsible for entering into the illegal agreement.

11. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed in limine, as the petitioners have no locus standi either to question the reglstered sale deed dated

05.O2.1977 or to seek restoration of possession under Section 32(1) of the A.P. (Telarrgana Area) Tenancy and Agricuitural Lands Act, 1950. He further submitted that the original Protected Tenant (P.T.) of the subject land in Sy.No.13, admeasuring Ac.l4.2l gts, was one Kurva Beeraiah @ Siddapuram Beeraiah S/o Yellaiah, to whom the 38-E ownership certificate was issued- The petitioners, who claim to be the legal. heirs of a different individual, Kurva Beeraiah ' ntR 2ot9 suPREvE couRT 4G54 10 SKS,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 S/o Balaiah, have failed to prove any lawful connection to the actuai P.T. and had their application for amendment of the father's name rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Despite this, they filed the present petition under Section 32 wtthout eslablishing any valid title or possession.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 was validiy executed by the original P.T. after receiving lawful consideratron. and possession was simultaneously handed over to respondents 5 and 6, whose names have been duly recorded in the revenue records and who have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property for over 30 years. The allegation of dispossession in the year 1974 is baseless and unsupported by evrdence. The respondents also brought to the attention of the Court that the Crvil Court had already decreed their suits for injunction and damages in their favor, and that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for trespass and that any challenge to the sale transaction or claim of restoration must be made before a Civil Court and not through summary proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 11 SKS,J C.R.P.t{o.5O3 of 2OO9 particularly after a lapse of several decades. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the civil revision petition.

13. In support of his submissions, learne{ counsel for the respondents, relied upon several judgments to assert that the revision petition is not maintainable and that the petitioners have no legal entitlement to seek restoration of possession under Section 32 of tLLe A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. He relied on the judgment reported in A. Narasimha (diedl per L.R. v. A. Krishna and othersa, wherein it was held that restoration of possession under Section 32 must be sought \Mithin a reasonable time after dispossession, and not after a long delay of several decades, as in the present case. Similarly, reliance was placed on Devavathi Namya and Others v. Gurukul Trust, Ghatkesar and Otherss, which held that an application under Section 32 presupposes the existence of a protected tenant or their legal heir having been dispossessed, and that relief cannot be granted where the petitioners themselves admitted to having regained possession at a later point, thus rendering the application. infructuous. o zoos (a)eLr zaa ' zooa {s) nrr +ts 72 SKS,J C.R,P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 L4. He also referred to the Judgment of this Court in Jupudi Bhushanam v. Joint Collector, Khammam and Others 6, rvhich clanhes that once ownership is conferred under Section 38-tr(2), any subsequent dispossession must be redressed through a civil suit, and not under the provisions of the Tenancl,' Act. Further, he cited Bheemati Dawood v. Madichetty Rachaiah and OthersT, which emphasized that where tenancy rights have been surrendered lor-rg back-such as 3O years prior-restoration of possession cannot be claimed under Section 32, especially when the protected tenant remained silent for decades. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in S. Sudershauam v. Mandal Revenue Offrcer, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District 8 , rrled that if the applicant is not a protected tenant as per the records and their claim is based on agency or other grounds, then the petition under Section 32 is liable to be rejected. 1 5. In t he light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the following issues fall for consideration u rggz (t) alr e:; ' 2oo+ 1+1 aLt +02 'tgga (c) aLt :os 13 sxs,J C.R.P.No.5o3 of 2OO9 Whether the petitioners have established themselves as legal heirs of the original Protected Tenant {Kurva Beeraiah @ Srddapuram Beeraiah S/o Yellaiah)? Whether the registered sale deed dated O5.02.1977 is void under Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act? Whether lhe statutory rcvenue authorirics have jurisdiction to annul the said deed and direct restoration of possession? Whether the judgment of the Tribunal warrants any interference? 1t Il Point Nos.i to iii:

16. As seen from the record, admittedly, the 38-E ownership certifrcate was issued in favour of Kurva Beeraiah S/o Yellaiah in the year 1973. It is not in dispute that the sale deed in favour of the respondents was executed in the year 1977, i.e_, within four years from the conferment of ownership. The revision petitioners seek to invoke Section 48-A, which prohibits alienation by a Protected Tenant within eight years from such conferment. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners' locus standi to challenge the sale is itself in serious doubt. The petitioners claim descent from Kurva Beeraiah S/o Balaiah, who is not the same person as the 38-tr certificate holder Kurva Beeraiah S/o Yellaiah. The petitioners' application for 1,4 sKs,J C.R.P.No.503 of 2OO9 amendment of the father's name in the revenr-re records was rejected, and no appeal has been preferred against such rejection

17. In Jupudi Bhushanam (supra), this Court held that once ownership is conferred under Section 38-E(2), any subsequent dispute over alienation must be adjudicated before the competenl civil Court and not under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Lrkewise, in Devavathi Namya (supra), it was held that the presumption of possession and restoration under Sectjon 32 arises only where the petitioner is proved to be a Protected Tenant or their heir, and any restoration must be sought within a reasonable time. Here, the petition is filed nearly three decades after the registercd sale, rvithout proof of Iille or continuous possession. i8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Narayanamma (supra) laid down that transfers during the statutorily prohibited period are void, and parties to such transfers are equally culpable. Horvever, such declarations require a competent forum. Similarly, in Ponam Bai (supra), this Court reaffirmed that permanent alienations in contravention of 15 SKS,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 tenancy provisions are void, but must be challenged appropriately, with competent jurisdiction and proof of status as protected tenant or legal heir.

19. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is also not in dispute that upon issuance of the 38-E certificate, the protected tenant acquires ownership rights and ceases to be a tenant under the Act. Therefore, any alienation thereafter, whether alleged to be in contravention of statutory restrictions or not, can be challenged only in accordance wilh law and before a competent civil Court. The revenue authorities are not vested with jurisdiction to declare any registered sale deed as void or to restore possession on that basis. According to the petitioner alienation is in contravention of 48A of the Act Even assuming there is a violation of any statutory restriction on alienation within a specified period, such issues are required to be addressed by the appropriate government authority through due procedure.

20. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, it.is held as follows 16 SKS,J C.R-P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 "46A. { Restriction on permanent alienatron or transfer of land acquired by protected tenant. ISection 48-A inserted by Act No. XXXIX of 1959.] (l) Un the case of a permanent alienation or ,rnnSf( r b\ i, pr,,t(Cled lenant o[ ani land in rcspect of u4rich he has acquiredl the right of o$'nership under section 38 or section 38-D or scction 38-E at the reasonable price determined by the Trlbunal and more than eight years have not elapsed since the date of such acquisition the Tahsrldar may [).\1K] [Omitted by Act No t 2 of 1(169.1 take over the land on payment to the protected tenant as compcnsation a sum equivalent to the reasonable price so dctermined. Where any portion of the reasonable price still remains to be paid to the landholder u.hose interests werc acquired by the protected tenant, sllch portion shall bc pard to the landholder from thc compensation payable under this section and thc baiancc shall bc paid to the protected tenant. (2) The Iand so taken over shaLl vest in the Government free from all encumbrances ano shall bt: under their- management until it is disposed of in ar:cordance $,ith the rulcs made under this Act. (3) Nothing contained in this section shatt appi-v, (a) to a simple mortgage effected by the protected tenant; or 1,7 SKS,J C-R.P.No.SO3 of 2oO9 It 1 (b) to any gift made by the protected tenant in favour o[ his spouse or children: provrded that any alienation or transfer of land made by the donee within a period of eight years from the date of the acquisitron of the ownership by the protected tcnant shal! be subject to the rcstrictions contained in this section as if it was an alicnation or transfer made by the protected tenant.]"

21. Further, the petitioners have neither established their legal heirship to the protected tenant nor have they initiated any proceedings before the competent forum to challenge the sale transaction or seek cancellation of the 38-E certificate. In the absence of such adjudication and considering that Section 48-A imposes restrictions on permanent alienation or transfer of land acquired under Sections 38, 38-D, or 38-E within a period of eight years from the date of such acquisition, no valid claim or interference can be entertained. As the Tahsildar is empowered under Section 48-A to take over such land and vest it in the Government under specific conditions, the alleged alienation, if within the restricted period, must be examined through appropriate legal channels. However, till no such proceedings are initiated.and adjudicated, and given the limited jurisdiction of the revenue authorities, no interference is warranted in the findings recorded by the Joint Collector. , SKS,J C.R.P.No.5O3 of 2OO9 Point No.iv:

22. In view of the above discussion in point Nos i to iii, there is no illegality in the order of the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector has discussed all the issues and it is a vvell reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere in the order

23. In view thereof, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed conhrming the order dated 02.08.2008 passed in Case No.F1/03/2001 by the Joint Collector at Mahabubnagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. ED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR t'l secrton oFFtcER To, 1 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District 2. The Tahsildar, Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagal DisJrict 3. One CC to Sri N.Ashok Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] +. One CC to Sri Mohd Gulam Rasool' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies a NVB/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1810612025 ORDER GRP.No.503 of 2009 igJIJL im \\ (.i l.' s F,/ \ r DISMISSING THE CRP &a