The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T. Prasanna Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Vedula Srinivas appe,aring for Smt. Vedula Chitralekha Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri N. Naveen Kumar CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 730 OF 2014 Petition un,Jer section 91 AP(TA) Tenancy and Aprr < ultural Lands Act against the order daled 15.12.2012 in file No. F2/1584t20J8 on rhe file of the Court of the Joint Sollector-(J), Ranga Reddy District Between: Naddi Ra1aiah S/o Late Jangaiah, Aged about 57 yezrrs, Occ Agriculture, R/o Nazdiks;ingaram Village, Yacharam Mandal, Rang'a Fie,ddy Distri-ct. AND 1 A. Madhavzr Agriculture, District. ...PETITIOIV =R/RESPONDENT Re.ddy Sio. Late Ram Reddy, aged R/o.Tulekaiam Village, lbrahimpatnam ab,:ut [,4a rrlal, 55 years. Occ Ranga Reddy ...RESPOND ENT/APPELLANT

2. Naddi Ramaiah S/o. Late Jangaiah, 3. Naddi Jangamma D/o. Late N.Nagaiah, 4. Naddi Rajanrma D/o. Late Jangaiah, 5. Naddi Laxmiah S/o Late Jangaiah, (RR No. 2 to 5 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDEN-TI;/RESPONDENTS 6 The Jornt Collecto(J), Ranga Reddy Districr .PROPOSED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No. 6 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP. NO:993 0F 2014) Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders of the Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy District in Case No. F21158412008 dated 15-12-2012 pending drsposal of the above Civil Revision petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Naveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Smt. Vedula Chitralekha The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJ-A.NA CIVIL REVTSION PETITION Nos.795l2OL3 & 730/2or4 COMMON ORDER: Since lhe lis and parties involved in thr.r:' revLsiot-r petitrons are same, these matters were heard togett: r and are disposed o[ bv way of this common order

2. 'fhese revision petitions are filed being aiir:rreved by order datc,,l 15.12.2OL2 passed in Case No.F2/ 15t'1 /2008 on the lllc of thc Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy Di:; rrr;t. rvhich was llled under Section 90 of the AP (TA) Tr: r.rnc-r. and Agricr-rltur: I Lands Act, 195O (for short 'the Act') r lr.rllcnging the order dated 06.02.2O08 passed in File No.A1:"-).99/2OO7 by the 'lah silriar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, in resl) .( t of l:rnd bearing 51' No.266, admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas. -,rlLr:rted .r.t '[ule l(alar Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rarrr,zr Rc<1dy Distrrct.

3. The respondent Nos.l to 4 in Case No.F27'1:'R4 l2OO8 flled CRP. No 795 of 2073 against the appr: lrr nt and respondent No.5 therein ; and the respondent N-r thcrein 2 filed CRP.No.73O o[ 2014 against the appellant and respondent Nos.l to 4 therein.

4. For the sake of convenience, the partics lterein arc rcfcrred to as arrayed in Casc No.F2/ 1584/2OOa (he,,:Lnafr<', referrecl to as 'appeat)

5. The brief facts as averred beforc thc trial CoLrrt are that the appellant A.Madhava Rcddy, hacl purchascd land in Survey No. 266 admeasuring 4.29 guntas. located in Trtle Kalan Village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrlct, through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2O05. 'I'hc vcndor. Batthula Godamma, was recorded as tl're larvful pattedar, and the transaction was duly mutated in ttre name of appellant. Possession was claimed to be unintcrrupted, peaceful, and agriculturally developed since thc date o[ .purchase. Meanwhile, earlier proceedings had recorded the names of other individuals as protected tenants. Ilowever, they had allegedly surrendered their tenancy rights via proceedings dated 30.O9.2005 under Section 19 of the Act- This surrender was officially accepted, and their names were rounded off in thc tenancy register, reinforcing the position of appetlant that l no proteote(l tcltancy rights subsisted thereafte r Contrarily, the respc ndent s who are descendants of one lJ :r11ani Venk:r (also refr'rr,:tl r,r as Vr..nkaiah) asserted tenancy righl:; lry claiming to be lcgal h,:irs of the original protected tenant, 1,tey securcd succcssio r orders from the MRO, Ibrahimpa trtn, under Section .t0 oI lhc Act in File No.A/4g63/ t](rO5 date<i 2LO2.2006. anrl sought possession under Secticrr-.32(11 utcl<t File No. B,r67OO/2OO5.

6. 'l'[re appell:rnr challenged both actions befi:,r,. the Joinr Collcctor. 'l hr: Joint Collector, upon app:,.r:rls (F-ile Nos.l'2l5040/20O6 and F2/SO3g/2006l, se-t :iside borh succession :rrr<l possession orders, and held that lt;e Mandal Revenue O.fic,:r lacl<cd jurisdrction to decide queslir.,rrs of legal heirship fo- te'nancy succession and directed the rrrspondents to approar h a cornpetent civiI Court. Subseq.,r,:,ntly, the respondents filcd O.S.No.17O of 2OO7 before the .j.r:rior Civil Judge, Ibrahinrpat:rn, which was decreed in tht.i - favour, declaring tLrern as tegdl heirs of Late Nagani Venka Jou,ever, this decree clid not speci$z survey numbers o;- tenancy succession in the precise terms. as required und,:r the Act. Despite that, the 'l'ahsildar, Ibrahimpatan, issued fn,sh orders 4 dated 06-02-2008 in F'ile No.h/5299/2OO7, granring succession and directing restoration of possession based on the said civil decree, and without veriiying prior appellate ordcrs t hat had already invalidated such relief.

7. The appellant contended before the trial Court that the Tai'rsildar failed to issue mandatory notices to aflectecl pitrties, inclr-rding himself ; thaL the orders were passed in a hasty rnanner within 2 I days, violating procedural norms t hat thc l'ahsildar contradicted his own observations by granting possession and succession despite acknowledging rcgistered orvnership and mutation of appellant ; that _ the dccrcc lrom the civil Court was misused to circumvent appellate rulings, and succession of tenancy rights was improperly inferred ; that no material evidence was provided to provc that lhe rcspondents or their ancestor ever held possession or teltancy; that thcre was no record of tenancy in the revenue entries for the cntical years (I954-55), suggesting oral surrender ; that the application under Section 32 was Iiled after a dclay of nearly five decades without explanation, thereby prejudicing the investments of appellant and improvements in the land ; and that tlre juclicial precedents required stri(]t scrutiny of delayecl tln:inc_\, clainrs, rvhich was ignored.

8. Thr' Joint Collcctor, upon reconsidering thr: r;ratter, held that the orrler o[ thc 'l'ahsildar dated 06.02.2C1)8 ',vas not maintainabk: as it restored possession post ar.:rrulment of original ordc'rs in Filt: Nos. N/4863/2OOS aod Blt:7OO/2OO5. Further, that the changes in ownership, inveslrtents, and possessio.-r b1, t [rc appcllant had materia. lv allered circumstanccs, makrng restoration of possesr;t rn legally untenablc. It rvas obscr-r,,ed th:rt the civil Court h:r, I onl-y rlled on legal heirship, nol tenancy succession, .-an<t Tahsildar lacked auLlrority (o lc[_v on the decree for conferrtr.g tenancy rights wittrout condLrcting frcsh cnquiry or issuing nttice.

9. Upo-r detailcd t--onsicleration of averments rczr<te by both sides, tire appeal rvas allowed by the trial Cour t and the Tahsildar's order dated 06.02.2OOB was set ar;rle in its entirety orr grounds of procedural impropriety, jur.isdictional error, ancl lack ol- notice. The possession of appellant remarned undisturbcd, and respondents were ,rrlvised to pursue ci,ril remedtes if available under larv. i\ggrieved 6 thcrcby, thcse revision petitions are filed by respondents ln thc appeal I0 Hcard Sri 1'. Prasanna Kumar, learncd counsel for rcvision pctitioners in CRP.No.795 of 2O 13, Sri N.N:rvecn Kurnar, learncd counsel for revision petitioner in CRP.No.730 of )Ol4, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing tbr Srnt Veclula Chitralekha, learned counsel for rcspondents I l Learncd counsel lor revision petitioners in CRP.No.795 of 2O 13 sr-rl;mitted that the impugned order passed b-y the Jornt Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in File No.F?/ i584/2008 dated 15-12-2012, is contrary to the record, inconsistent with the probabilities of the case, and vrol:rtive of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the appellate authority erred in setting asidc the rvell reasoned order of the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatan, datecl 06-02-2008, passed in File No.A/5299/2007, desplte clcar findings recorded therein, and that such order mcrited afhrmation rather than reversal. He contended that the Joint Collector lrad failed to duly consider the scope oF the proceedings and the respective contentions of the parties, I 7/ 1 particularly overlooking that thc petitioners ar- rl respondent No.2 wer: declared legal hcir s of the original pro; er:[66[ 1e6sr1 - late VerLka alias Venkaiah Refercnce was nracle lo thc earlier enquiry conducted by thc Mandal Revenue ,.) fiice r (now Tahsildar), Ibrahimpatan, unrler Section 40 of t}-rr. Act in File No.A/a863/ 2005, wherein, succcssion of tenanr:., rights was validly g-anted in their f:rvour Consequent .c thc said succession, possession had also been ordered rrr:rLer Section 32 of the Acr in File No. B /{>7OO /2005. He hrrther. contended that respc,ndent No. 1, who t:laims to have purch;:;r:d the land in Sy.No.266 ulde Sale Dt,e<l dated 06 O4-2OO|. h:rd filed appeals ailairlst both the strt.cession and posses.l;i:rn orders. The Joint Collector had previously set aside said c,t lers purely on jurisdic tior-ral grounds, holding that only a civit r_)rurt could decide sur:cession matters, *,ithout adjudicating ttre rnerits. Acting upc n I he same, thc pctitioncrs obtained a rlc crr:e from the Junior Cir.il Judge, Ibrahrnpatan, in O.S. No. . ;() of 2OO7, declaring hem as legal hcrrs of the protected cnant_ He emphasizerl that upon obtaining the said (1,.(:rec, the petitioners re approached thc Tahsildar, who aftr:: lollowing proper pro,;edLlre, reinstated tl-rc succession and .r,rsscssion orders- a

12. Learnecl counsel for revision petitioners inccssantly contended that the observations made by Joint Collector in the irnpugncd order rvere factually and legally flawed, particularly in his :rsse rtion that the Tahsildar had acted contrary to thc earlicr orders- He reiterated that the sale of the land by thc pattedar to respondent No.l was in violation of Sectiorr 38 D of the 'len:rncy Act, as the land was covered by protected tcn.urcy, and that such alienation conferred no valid rights upon rt'sponrlent No. i. The lack of objection from thc pattedar thror-Lghout the tcnancy proceedings underscored the petitioners' legitimatc entitlement to succession and recovery of possession. Ile lamented that the Joint Cqllector had failed to consider that respondcnt No- 1 was not entitled to challenge proceedings th:rt the pattedar himself had not opposed, and that thc impr,rgncd order was unsustainable both on factual and legal grounds. Thcrefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 15 12 2OI2, restoring the order passed by t he 't'ahsildar, granting succession and delivery of possession.

13. Learned counsel for revisior-r petitioner in CRP.No-73O of 20 14 submittecl that the order passed by Joint Collector, 7/ 9 setting aside the orders of the 'lahsildzrr, is cc,r lrarv to law and prir:ciples of applicable legal provisrons. ^ r, contended that the Joint Collector exceeded its authonlr , ltrled to .apprecial e Lhe conclusivc nature of tlrc decr':t. passed in O.S.No. i /O ol 2OO7, and crred in finding tha thr:re was suppress ion of facts . He averred that the decret: , o nt:lusively proves the petitioners' status as leg:rl heirs ;rrtrl protected tenants, anrl that the Joint Collector lailecl to lonsider its implicatic,ns is a signif-icant oversigl-rt. He assr':., cl that the claim {ilerl b.y the petitioner under Section 32 of .l rr: Act is not barrecl by limitation and that the s:rrne dr:-.r'rir1:61 16 56 considerel on its merits, as the provisions of thr: r\r:t nust be construed h:rrmoniously, and not the technicalitit:r,'I'hr:refore, while adv,rca ting that there are illegalitics in rrnpr rg ned order, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition

14. On the other hand, the leamed senlr) counsel appearing frrr the respondents vetrernently ol)l)oscd the submissions made , by learned counsel for rl.r: revision petitioners, and contended that the claims put fr:r I 'r b1, them were barr<:d i;y limitation and devoid of :iny legal lr,sn61o11orr, as such, the Jotnt Collector rightly reliect upon tltr. judgment 10 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao vs. Nallolla Pentaiahr and passed the impugned order. He lamcnted that the pctitiol-lers failed to produce any credible material to demonst rurt(: that Nagani Ve nka was a protected tenant of the subject l;rnd, and averred that their claim as legal heirs is unsupportcd by any contemporaneous record. Hc asserted that thc protccted tenancy rights, if any, were duly surrenderecl by t lrt' original tenants in favour of the pattedars through a r,:rlid order dated 30.09.2005 in Case No.l\/47a7 /2OO5 unrlt:r Scction 19 of the Act, thereby extinguishing any deri,,,arive rights claimed by the petitioners.

15. With respect to thc succession certificate, as relied upon by the petitioners, he articulated that it was obtained without impleading the respondents, rendering it defective and non- binding on them. He rerterated that a succession certificate issued under civil law c:tunot, in any event, confer protected tenancy rights under the pror,,isions of thc Tenancy Act. The respondents, having purchased the land in 2006 from the recorded paLtedar, are borta ftde purchasers for value, and the belated attempt of the petitioners to assert rights thereafter is ' AtR r999 (9) scc 183 7/ 11 clearly an afterthought aimed at unsettling settL:rl possession. Therefor,:, while advocating that therc arc n:r procedural irregularities, factual errors, or legal infir ; r;lies in the impugned order passecl by the Joint Colloctor, Irc prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions, zrs thr same lacks merits.

16. I{aving regard to thc rival submissrons II rde, and on going through the matenal placed on r(.c()rii. thc points determin:d 1or consideratron bv this Court tu e Whether the Joint Collector has r-ightly r clretl r.rrorr lhe judgmcnt passcd by thc Honble Supr,,rne , ., r t ln the case of Ponnala Narsrng Rao Vs n"i,,,lla Pentaiah in the impugned order with r(:spe( I o limrtation ? II Whether the impugned ordcr passctl by tlrc ,lrrr Collecfor requires interfercnce of this Courl ? III. To lvhat extent 2 Point Nos.I to III:

17. Penrsal of the impugned order shows that ('t\( ept on thc ground of lirnitation, there is no discussion on r1l, rits o[ thc l2 case. However, though the Joint Collector observed that the claim is barred by limitation, the order passed by the MRO would show that petitioners thcrein werc agitating their rights from the year 199 I onnards, Ibr granl of succession rights held by original protected tenant late Venka alias Venkaiah, contending that they are leflal lreir s of Nagani \renka, who is their maternal grandfather lt is hLr thcr stated that one Nagani Achamma had obtaine<l tlrt: succcssion tenancy rights under Section 40 of the Act, lroui ttre MIRO, urde orders dated

17.O2.1992 and 17.O8.1992 rn File No.A/2353/1991 in respect of same land '"vhich is ctrallenged by the revision petitioners herein beforc liling appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of thc Act. and the Joint Collector uide order dated O6.O8.2005 in fite No.F2/7542/1992 set aside the succession granted in thc name of one Nagani Achamma and directed to conduct deneuo enquiry into the claims and counter claims of thc [)artrcs- IB. On receipt of ,the order datccl 06.08.20O5 passed by the Joint Coilector, the MRO, conducted enquiry afresh, during which, it was revealed that Nagani Venka was protected te nant of lhe land in surwey Nos.226 and 227 , and the said 13 Nagani Venka expired leaving behind onl1, rne dtrushtcr Balamrra rvho married Naddi Jangaiah. i:i rbscquentll,, Balamma rlied leaving behind the petitioners I t, , ein as lcga I heirs and during the enquiry it was reveale rl t lra I Nag:rni Achamrrra is no way concerned with Nagani \,, n ka :rnd l,ris daughte: Naddi Balamma. 'I'herefore, the Mlit( ) after duc enquiry, is sard to have granted the successr,trL o[ tenanr:v rights ht:ld by Nagani Venka under Section 40 r I the Act, in favour oi Naddi Ramaiah and four others, uidr: rr-ders datt,rl 2l.O2-2006 The said order was set aside by .J,ri-.t Collr:ctor. uide order dated O7.O4.2OO7 in an appeal l.led b-r. onr: A.Madhava Reddy, purchaser of the land in rirLr vey No.22(r from Bathula Godamma, and the Joint Collectc)r .lire (]tecl thc petitioner therein to get succession througLL i ir.il Court. Basing on the same, the revision petition,-,1.1; obterincd succession certilicate and approached the Mli() All thesr: proceedings clearly show that the claim of petitl ) tcrs rs not time barred. Furthermore, the respondents her(,r: purchasecl land dur.ng pendency of these claims in thr: r,car 2006. therefore, thcy cannot claim that the land was pu:..It:rscd [ror.r.r pattedar, and that petitioners herein filed applic;i: trons only tcr t 74 defeat their rights and also convertcd the property into agricultural land

19. The backdrop facts would rcveal that the titigation started from the year 1992 itself and the revision petitioners were Iighting for their rights since thcn. l{owever, it is also to be noted that the property rvas purchasccl b1'respondcnts in the year 2O06, That being so, it cittnttt be said that the judgment as relied upon by thc Joint Collector in the impugned order is not applicable [o tlte lacts o[ the cases on hand. In other words, it can be lreld t hat ttre irnpugned order passed by the Joint Collector is not in :rccordance with law.

20. In consideration of cases on merits, it is the contention of respondents herein that there is no document filed by the revision petitioners to show that Nagani Venka was protected tenant, but it is relevant to note ttrat tlle said aspect was already decided earlier by the concerned 'l'ahsildar. 'lherefore, it can be observed that only after due vclillcation and enquiry, it was decided that Nagani Venka lvas protected tenant and the petitioners herein are his legal heirs, and at that point of time, one Achamma filed petition for succession, and after duc 7, 15 enqurr) i( was cleared that she is not legal I'r rir of Nagan i Venka, and that being so, it cannot be said tl.r: r lvas cor durcted no enqulry

21. 'l'he other contention of respondents is llt;rt llrotectecl tenants have surrendered their protected tenanoy nghts in favour o[ pattedars uid.e order dated 30.O9.1,(_O5 in casc NO.A/4i'87/2O05 under Section l9 of the Act. ltrwcvcr, it is noticed tha t the said order was not filed belr,r:: l he Joint Collector, aLnd the Joint Collector had not discr-rs:;:d anything on this issue. Accepting the argument tltat l5e liligation s tarted in t he year 1 992 itself and that pet itiolte s a rc legal heirs of tlagani Venka who surrendered their rig.,l.s, but it is takcn note Ihat there is no such material on recrrrd to show that the pctitioners surrendered their rights i:r favour of pattedars In the absence of any record, it cannol b:: sard that protected tenancy rights were surrendered to patl_eri trs

22. That 21;211, it is the further contention of r,_-sp6n6.,r1" that the sr.lccession certificate issued by the civil Cc,urt is not valid as respondents were not made as party lo thc said proceedings, ,,vhereas, it is noticed that successirtr, r;er trticate \ 16 lvas issued after issuing pubtic noticc to lvhornsoever concerncd for grievances. That being so, the rcsporrdcnts who :1re noI clairning rights through Nagani \/enku r..rrrrrrl tlrspuLt: succession certificatc on the ground that thc.\, ilr(. tn[(]r.estcd party. 'lherefore, there is no force in I he saicl con r( t I I tolt

23. [n view ol the above discussion, this Corrrt rs rrf thc llr nt opinion that the impugncd order d:itcd l:i t 2._Z() I .? lrrrsst:rl rn Case No.F2/ 1584/2OO8 by the Joint Co[[r:ctor, ]rirs no in(-nt. and the same is decided only on the ground ()l llntrl.rLtolt, observing that it is barred by Iimit:rliotr, \\.lr(,r( ;rs. r(,(-()r.(l rvould clearly reveal ttrat the litigatiorr lbr riglrts o\(,r [)r()[)erly was initiated in the year 1992 itsclt, as sLrch, it cannol l)t, saicl that it is barred by limitation- For that matter. it rs norcd ttrat the respondents herein purchased lhc propeitv rrr tlte vcar 2006, as such, this Court concludes t hat Lhe irnPrrr:nerl or.rlcr rs liable to be set aside.

24. ln the result,,these Civil Revision Pctitions rrrr, zillolr,ed, setting aside the impugned order dated 15. I2.20 l2 J.rasst.cl in Case No.F2/ 1584/2OO8 on the file o[ the Joint Ctollt:cror- (J), Ranga Reddy District, and conf irming thc or r Icr cl.rted 7 17

06.02 2008 l)assecl tIt Iiitc No,5299/2OO7 by ilrr: -l'ahsildar, ll;rahintl;itltrarn Mandal 1'fir:re shall be no ordr: rs (o costs Mr;<:cllancous applic.rtions, rl any pen,ltrig, shall also stand clo:;cd sP/- A.V.S.PRASAD [,EFtUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .) CTION OFFICER To, .l The Joinr Coltector-(J). Ranga Reddy District. 2. One CC o S;ri Chalakani Venkat yadav, Advocate [OF,|()] 3. One CC ro Sri T prasanna Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 4 One CC to Smt. Veduta Chitratekha. Advocate [OpUC 5. One CC lo Srr N Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD (lopies VH/PS I, v HIGH COI.JRT DATED:2310712025 ,a- . \ (l 2 4 t.i:P 2025 \ ,') ',./. \_ Dr. .\ .-.., COMMON ORDER CRP.No.795 of 2013 AND CRP.No.730 of 2014 ALLOWING BOTH CRP's {x