High Court · 2025

11. Mr. Mldduri Ganesh, S/o. late Madduri Venkat Swamy, Aged about 44 years, Occu. Business R/o. H.No.3-2-90, Near Hanuman Templel Hyderguda, ' Rajendranagr, K.V. Ranga Reddy Diskict

12.Mr. Maddur [amesh, S/o. late Madduri Venkat Swamy, Aged about 43 Iears, Occu. Bygjqregs Ri/o.tl.No.3-2-90, Near Hanumin TEmple, Hyderguda, Rajendranagr, K.V. Ranga Reddy District

13. M.Jyothirmye, , D/o. late Vasantha Krishna, Aged about 22 years, Occu. Stqdgnt, R/ o. H No.3-2- 133, Hyderguda, Rajandranagar, Attapur, R. R.District

14. M.Om Prakash, , D/o. Late Vasantha Krishna, Aged about 21 years, Occu. Student, R/o. H.No.3-2-133, Hyderguda, Rajandianagar, Attafur, R.R.District

15. Sama Sandeep Reddy,., S/o. Late Rqm leddy Ri/o. Upperpaily (Viilage), Rajendranagar (Mandal) Ranga Reddy (District)

16. Sama Govardhan Redd Rajendranagar (Mandal y,_, S/o. Late Ram Reddy RJo. Upperpally (Village), ) Ranga Reddy (District) 17.Smt. Sama Manemma, , W/o. Late Ram Reddy Rl/o. Upperpally (Village), Rajendranagar (Mandal) Ranga Reddy (District) (Respondents No. 15 to 17 are formal parties as no relief is claimed against them) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Case No.F2l943l2o23 on the file of the Respondent No.3 i.e. The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District, and declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in entertaining the Appeal filed under Sec.90 of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 challenging the Sale Certificate issued by then Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West Division in respect of Sy. No.46 (Ac.1 0-39 Gts.) of Upperpelty Village, Rajendranagar Mandat, Ranga Reddy District, after a lapse of more than 60 years and without any condone delay application and proceeding with the matter as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and in vioration of principres of naturar justice and quash the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the order dated 0g.05.2023 in Appeal Case No.F2194312023. on the fire of the 3rd Respondent i.e. The Additionar. colector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District, pending disposat of W.p No. / 2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 preased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Appeal case No.F2l943/2023, on the file of the 3rd Respondent i.e. The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of W.p No. 12023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

2. G.Venkata Swamy, S/o. Late G.Laxmaiah (Died) As per LRs 7 to 14 YF .Qqgnyq Laxmi, Wo. M.Jeevan, Aged about 58 years, Occu. Household, - -' Rl/o. H.No.18-1-3221A. Shivaii Nagar, H"anuman fem6fe, Uppuguaa,---- Charminar, HyderabaiJ 3 4 5 t) 7 Mrs. V.Pushpa, W. Not Known, Aged about 45 years, Occu. Household, E/o: !-t Ng 3:2-e0, Hanuman Tempi'e, Hra;Aroll nljdn"olanasr, x V. iiihga Reddy Diskict Mrs. R.Aruna, Wo. R.Narsimha, Aged about 42 yearc, Occu. Household, Rl/o. H.No.2-60, Khanpur Vilage, R5lenoranigr-N{araii, (V.nr"rii n,iiitv District Mrs. G.Vijayalaxmi, Wo. G.Suresh, Aged about 43 years, Occu. Household, Rr/,o H.No.18-1-33il8t4a/49, Saibaira"Nagar, tttoin 6Jgn,'chlirih",,-- - -' FaraKnuma, Hyderabad Mr Madduri Ganesh, S/o. late _Madduri Venkat Swamy, Aged about 44 years, Occu. Business Rt/o. H.No.3-2-90, Near Hanuman Grfii,iel HyOergrb a,' Rajendranagr, K.V. Ranga Reddy District Mr. Mallduri [am.esh, Q/g latg M?ddqrj Venkat Swamy, Aged about 43 years, Occu. Business Rl/o. H.No 3--2-90, Near Hanumjn fEmpie, HyOerguOa, Rajendranagr, K.V. Ranga Reddy DistriCt i B I AND M.Jyothirmye, .,Olg tgt^" Vasantha Krishna, Aged about 22 years, Occu. --- Student, R/o. H. No.3-2- 133, Hyderguda, Raiandranagar, AttJptjr, R.R. District M.Om Prakash, , D/o. Late Vasantha Krishna, Aged about 21 years, Occu. Student, R/o H.No.3-2-133, Hyderguda, Ra;anaianagii, Attajur, R.n.Oistrict ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 14 1 2 J 4 9mt. Laxrnamma, Wo. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Occu. Hou:;ehold, Sama _Suresh Reddy, S/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occu. Business, - Sama Sunan Reddv. S/o late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occu. Business Sama Sya,m Sundar Reddy, S/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occu. Business (Alt Pq, of Upperpatty (Village), Rajendernagar (Mandat), Ranga Reddy (District)) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS uepartment) Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabaci 5 I!9 _Sl?19 of Tetangana. Fqp, Oy its principat Secretary (Revenue 6 The District corrector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongara Karan, Ranga Reddy T The Additionir-coflector, (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District Ar Kongara Karan, District Ranga Redrly District 8 The Special Grlde Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, , RaJendrana,Jar Division, Ranga Reddy District

9. The Tahsildnr, Raianderanagar Mandal, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District

11. Sama Govardhan Reddv , S/o. Late Ram Reddy R/o. Upperpally (Village),

10. Sama Sandeeo Reddv. . S/o. Late Ram Reddy RJo. Upperpalty (Vi age), -- -"' Rajendranal;ar (wandati Ranga neddy 1Disi,#tj Raiendranagar (Mandati Ranga AeOOvJoiiirictl' ' " - - - - -'

12. Smt. Sama l,4anemma. . W/o. Late Ram Reddy Ri/o. Upperpalty (Viltage), Rajendranagar (tr/andat) Ranga Reddy loiitidti (Respondents No. 't0 to 12 are formal parties as no relief is claimed against them) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firecr in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to i j vacate the lnterim Suspension Order daled 1410612023 granted in l.A. No.1 of 2023 in WP No. '14941 of 2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the lnterim Stay Order dated 1410612023 granted in l.A. No.2 ol 2023 in WP No. 14941 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHAIK ABDUL KALAM RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to'14: SRI M. SATISH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16221 OF 2023 Between:

1. Sama Sandee Occ. business, District p Reddy, S/o. Late Ram Reddy, Aged about 49 years, R/o. Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

2. Sama Govardhan Reddy, S/o. Late Ram Reddy Aged about 47 years, Occ. business, Rl/o. Upperpally Village, Ra.jendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITION ERS AND 1 2 3 4 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District. At Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Tahsildar, Rajanderanagar Mandal, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

6. G.Venkata Swamy, S/o. Late G. Laxmaiah (Died) As per LRs 7 to 14 7. Mrs. Baghya Laxmi, W i o. M. Jeevan, Aged about 58 years, Occu. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 18-1-3221 A, Shivaji Nagar, Hanuman Temple, Uppuguda, Charminar, Hyderabad .

8. Mrs. V.Pushpa, Wo Not Known, Aged about 45 years, Occu. Household, Rt/o. H.No.3-2-90, Hanuman Temple, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, K.V. Rbnga Reddy District.

9. Mrs. R.Arun;1, W / o. R. Narsimha, Aged about 42 years, Occu. Household, Rt/o H No.2-60. Khanpur Village, Raj-endranagar tulandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District

10.\lrs GVijayqlaxry,_WJ.g G.Suresh, Aged about43 years, Occu. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 18-1 337 I 8,148149, Saibaba Nagar, Moin Falaknuma, Hyderabad. 'Bagh, charminar, 'l 1. Mr Madduri Ganesh, S/o. late Madduri Venkat Swamv, Aqed about 44 vears. -' Occu. Busrness RJo. H.No.3-2-90, Near Hanuman Teriiplel Hyaeiguda,'-- Rajendranagar, K.V. Ranga Reddy District 12.Mr. Madduri Ramesh, S/o. late Madduri Venkat Swamy. Aoed about 43 vears. Occu. Business Rl/o. H.No.3-2-90, Near Hanuman feriptei HyOersrOr, ' -- -' Ra.jendranagar, K.V. Ranga Reddy District

13. M.Jyothirmye, D/o. late V€santha Krishna, Aged about 22 years, Occu. Student, Rt/o. H No. 3-2-1 33, Hyderguda, Raja-ndranagar, Aft apur, Ra nga Reddy District

14.M.Om Prakash, D/o. Late Vasantha Krishna, Aged about2l years, Occu. Student, R/o. H. No 3-2- 1 33, Hyderguda, Rajand-ranagar, Attafiur, danga Reddy District.

15. ,Smt. Laxmarnma. W/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Occu. Household. Respondent Nos.15 to 18 are R/o: of Upperpalty V; dge, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

16. Sama Suresr Reddy, S/o. late Laxma Reddy, Ag Business. Respondeht Nos.15 to 1B are nyo.'ot tj Rajendernalrar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ed about 56 years, Occu pperpally Village, 17 Sama Suman Reddy, lio lqle Laxma Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occu. Busrness, Hespondent Nos.15 to 18 are Rl/o. of Upperpally Villbge, Rajendernalrar lrr'landal, Ranga Reddy District.

18.Sama lyam Sundar Reddy, S/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 52 Vears. Occu. Business, Respontent Nos.15 to 18 are Rt/o. of "Upperpally Viliage,' RaJenderna(lar lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District

19. Smt. Sama Manemma (died), As per.LRs Petitioner No.1 and 2 (Respondent Nos.15 to .19 are formal parties) ...RESPONDENTS Petition uncer Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to case No.F2l943/2023 on the file of the Respondent No.3 i.e. The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District, and declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in entertaining the I Appeal filed under Sec.90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 challenging the Sale Certificate issued by then Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West Division in respect of Sy.No.46 (Ac. 1 0-39 Gts. ) of Upperpelly Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rang Reddy District, after a lapse of more than 60 years and without any condone detay application and proceeding with the matter as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and quash the same. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 08.05.2023 in Appeal Case No. F21943/2O23, on the file of the 3rd Respondent i.e. The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petilion, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Appeal Cise No. F2194312023, on the file of the 377. Respondent i.e. The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. G.Venkata Swamy, S/o. Late G. Laxmaiah (Died) As per LRs 7 to '14 2. Mrs. Baghya Laxmi, W / o. M. Jeevan, Aged about 58 years, Occu, Household, Rl/o. H.No. 18-1-322 A, Shivaji Nagar, Hanuman Temple, Uppuguda, Charminar, Hyderabad .

3. Mrs. V.Pushpa, W/o Not Known, Aged about 45 years, Occu. Household, R:/o. H.No-3-2-90, Hanuman Temple, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, K.V. Ranga Reddy District.

4. Mrs. R.Aruna, W / o. R. Narsimha, Aged about 42 years, Occu. Household, RYo. H.No.2-60, Khanpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District I I ,/ 6 7 8 I I 2 Mrs. G.Vijayalaxmi, W / o. G.Suresh, Aged about 43 years, Occu. Household, R/o. H.No 18-1-337 I B.148149, Saibaba Nagar, Moin Bagh, Charminar, Falaknuma Hyderabad. Mr. Madduri Ganesh, S/o. late Madduri Venkat Swamy, Aged about 44 years, Occu. Business R/o. H.No-3-2-90, Near Hanuman Temple-, Hyderguda,' Rajendranagar. K.V. Ranga Reddy District Mr, Mldduri Ramesh, S/o. late Madduri Venkat Swamy, Aged about 43 years, Occu. Business R/o. H.No.3-2-90, Near Hanuman Templel Hyderguda, Rajendranaga' K.V. Ranga Reddy District - M.Jyothirmye, D/o. late Vasantha Krishna, Aged about 22 years, Occu. Studenf Rl/c. H. N o.3-2-1 33, Hyderguda, Raja-ndranagar, A[tapur, Ranga Reddy District M.Om Prakash, D/o. Late Vasantha Krishna, Aged about 21 years, Occu. Student, Rl/o. H N o.3-2-1 33, Hyderguda, Rajand-ranagar, Attaftur, Fianga Reddy District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.6 to 1O Sama Sandeep Reddy, S/o. Occ..business, RYo. Upperpally Village, Rajendranbgar -Mandal, District 9ama Govardhal Reddy. S/o. Late Ram Reddy Aged about 47 yearc, Occ.. business, R/o. Upperpally Viltage, Rajendranabar fulandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rgm Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Ranga Redd! -Lgte ...RESPONDENTS/PETITION ERS

3. Ihe State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) Secretariat Buildings. Saifabad, Hyderabaci

4. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District

5. The Additional Collector (R) (FAC), Ranga Reddy Diskict. At Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District

6. The Specia Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisionat Officer, Rajendranagar Drvision, Ranga Reddy District.

7. The Tahsildar. Rajanderanagar Mandal, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District

8. 9mt. Laxmamma, W/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Occu. Household, Respondent Nos. 1 5 to 1 8 are R/ol of Upperpally Villdge, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

9. Sama Suresh Reddy, q1o l?!e Laxma Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occu. Business, Respondent Nos.15 to_18 are Wo-- of Upperpally Viltige, ' Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Sama Sunriln Reddy, S/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occu. Business, Respondent Nos.1 5 to 18 are Rl/o. of Upperpa y Vitiage, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districl. '

11. Sama Syanr Sundar Reddy, S/o. late Laxma Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occu. Busirress, Respondent Nos.15 to 18 are R/o. of Upperpally Viliage,' Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District I /7'

12. Smt. Sama Manemma (died), As per.LRs Petitioner No.1 and 2 (Respondent Nos.g to 12 are formal parties) 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 vacate the lnterim Suspension Order dated 27-06-2023 granted in l.A. No. 2 of 2023 in W.P. No. 1622 1 of 2023. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the lnterim stay order dated 2T10612023 granted in lA No. 3 of 2023 in W.P. No. 16221 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KATTKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 14: SRI M. SATISH KUMAR The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER I ,l / THE ]IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.14941 and I 622t OF'2023 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. W.P.Nos. 14941 of 2O23 and 16221 of 2023 are filed seeking the following reliet ".-..--to lssue an appropiate wiL order or direction more porttculerlg one in the nature oJ Wit of Certiorai cdtling for tlw records reLating to Case No.F2/943/ 2023 on the file of the respondent No.3 i.e. tte Additiotlal Collector (R) (FACL Ranga Red_dg Disfici and (ieclare the action ofthe respondent No.3 in entertaining the Appeal jiled. und,er Sec 9O of tl.e Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancg and Agicultural Land A<,t, 1950 cL@llenging the Sale Cefiificate issued bg then Reuenue Diuistonal Offi.cer Hgderabad West Div[sion in respect oJ SA.N1.46 (Ac.10 39 Gts) of UpperpellA Village, Rajendranagar MandaL Ranga Reddy Distici afier a lapse of more than 60 Aears and. tuitLlout a.ng condone delag application and proceeding with the matter as arbitrary, illegal and tuithout jurisdiction and in uiolation of principles of nqtural justice ond quash the same and to poss such other order........."

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

4. It is stated that the paternal grandfather namely Sri Alladi Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy @ Sama Penta Reddy was the protected tenant of the agricultural lalds admeasuring Ac.90.27 guntas in Sy.Nos.37 to 41, 44 to 47 including Ac. 10.39 guntas in Sy.No.46 situated at Upperpelly Village, Rajendraragar Mandal, Ranga I I I 2 \ Reddy District ald his nzune was recorded as protected tenalt in the registers maintained under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950. It is case of the petitioners that their grandfather name was recorded in Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 artd thereafter, all the revenue records depicts the nature of the lands as tenancy lands in the name of the petitioners father as protected tenant. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondents predecessors Sri Venkata Swamy filed an application seeking issuance of ownership certificate under the provisions of. Act in respect of the subject lands and the said application has been dismissed by the Tahsildar vide proceedings No.D/ 155/89 dated

27.07.1989; and aggrieved by the same, he {iied an appeal vide No.B4/2728/9O under Section 9O of the Act before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, ar,d uide order dated 7L.12.1995 the sajd matter was remanded back to the Ta.Lsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry, and in terms of the said order, the Deput5r Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal has passed proceeding No.D / 1278 / 1993 dated 17 .O8.2O13 rejecting the claim on the ground that the respondent No.5 herein (petitioner therein) has not established his claim over the said lands even after giving ample and adequate opportunity of more than five years; and I I If- 3 aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 has fried an appeal in case No.C/5556/13 under Section 5(B) ofthe Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, before respondent No.4 and the same was allowed vide order dated

21.O1.2015 setting aside the order dated lT.O8.2Ol3 in proceeding No.D/1278/1993 passed by the Deputy Coilector arrd Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. It is further case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2015, they have Iiled trvo revisions uide Case Nos.D1/1216/2015 and Dl/1217 /2015 under Section 9 of the Act, l97l before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, and the sarne were disposed of uid"e order dated O5. 12.2O 15 setting aside the order dated 21.Ol.2OlS in case No.C/5556/ 13. It is further stated that the predecessors,in_ interest of the respondents have filed W.p.No.358l of 2O16 before this Court and the s€une was allowed uide order dated 2O.I2.2O2O leaving it open to the parties to agitate their claims in accordaace with law by initiating appropriate proceedings and if any such proceedings are initiated by the parties, the concerned authorities are directed to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of initiation of such proceedings, w.ithout reference to any of the findings or observations recorded in the orders passed by respondent Nos.I to 3 therein. 4 5- A careful examination of the record reveals that there are serious inter se disputes between the petitioners on one hand as protected tenant and respondent No.5 as the predecessors-in- interest on the other hand. Respondent No.5 has initially liled an application seeking issuance of ownership certificate on the file of the Tahsildar and the same was dismissed vide proceedings No.D/ 155/89 dated 27 .O7 .1989 and aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal vide No.B4/2728/9O before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, ald vide order dated 71.12.7995, the same was remanded back to the Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry; and thereafter, the Deputy Collector ald Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal has passed proceeding No.D / 1278 / 1993 dated

17.Oa.2O1,3 rejecting the claim of respondent No.5; and aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 has filed an appeal in case No.C/5556/13 under Section 5(B) of the Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1977, before respondent No.4 and the same was allowed vide order dated

27.O1.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have fiied revision, ald the salne was disposed of setting aside the order dated 2i.O1.2015 in case No.C/5556/ 13. 5

6. While the matter stood thus, the predecessors-in interest of the responrlents have filed W.P.No.3581 of 2016 before this Court and the sarrre was allowed uide order dated 2O. l2.2O2O leaving it open to the parties to agitate their claims in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioners is that thelr grandfather,s name has been recorded in the revenue records prior to 1954-55 as protected tenant and at this length of time, the respondents are not having aly right and entitlement to maintair-r application before the original authority seeking to record their names as protected tenant and consequential issuance of ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Act or consequential delivery of the possession under Section 32 or for sanction of the succession rights under Section 40 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that since last 6O years, their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the subject property and the respondents are not entitled for issuance of the oqmership certificate under the provisions of the Act. 7 . The Frrll Bench of this Court in Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and others I held that for vesting of the ownership of land, held by a protected tenant under Section 38 (e)(1) of the Act, it is not necessary that the protected tenalt t ntR 198e ap zz 6 should have been in physical possession as on the date of notification under Section 38 (e)( 1) i.e, on 01 .0 1 . 1973 arrd it is sufficient if he continues to hold the status of a protected tenant as on notified date, even if not in physical possession and he satislied the requirements of Section 38 (7) of the Act.

8. The tenants and their successors-in-interest are entitled to file an application seeking for grant of tenancy rights over the property and consequential delivery of the possession either under Section 32 of the Act or succession certificate under Section 40 of the Act. The principle laid down by this Court in Sada's case (supra) was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Kotaiah & Anr. as. Propertg Association of the Baptist Churclrcs(P) Ltd.,2 and also ?hota Sridhar Reddg u. Mq.ndalo. Rqm,ulatnmat. In /(oto,io,h's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: " 19. Iru uiew of the aboue, tt is euident that the scheme oJ the Act proutdes that a person who is a protected tenant ha,s a right to get the ownership in eccordance with the statutory prouisions, provid.ed. the total area of the Lqnd owned by the landholder including th.e tand under the cultiuation of his tenants is more than three times the area of a familg hotding for the local area concerned. The person should be in lawful possession of the land on the date of commencement of the 1950 Act to claim benefits under the AcL The Gouerrament ho,s to make a declaration bg publishing tle notifi.cation in the gazette in respect of ang drea and from such dqte as mag be specifed therein, that the ownership of atl tand.s held bA protected tenants uhich tlLeA are ' 1rses1: scc az+ '1zozr1 re scc r 7 eatitled to purchase from their landholders in such area und,er the Act, subject to the condition-s laid doutn under Section 38{7) of tLe Act would st@nd transfened to and uest in the protected tenants holdttq them as such and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full ouners oJ such lands.

20. The certificqte issued under Section 38 E(2) shall be a)ac\usiue euidence oJ tle protected tenant haDing become tLLe o,Dner ol tlle land with effect from the date of the ceftirtcate, as aqan-st ttLe landfuilder and all other persois hduing ang interest tllerein. In case th.e protected tenant is not in possession of the lc,nci, he has a right to restoration of the possession of the said lcnd through the Tqh-sitdar. The protected tenq.nt cannot be dispossessed illegally bg the landlord or anAbodg else. If so dispossesse4 he lws a ight to restoration of the pos:;ession. He crrn be dispossessed onlg bg taking recourse to th. procedure p.escibed. under Section 32 of ttLe 1950 AcL

21. There is a complete embargo on the ight of the landholder tc alienate the tenanted land to a third patTg llithout giuing an option to the tenant to purch@se the land.. Section 47 of the 1950 A:t (omitted- bA the amendment of 1969) prouided. thet ang trensfer of such land except to the protected" tenant shall be uoid ao initio. The protected tenant mag surrend.er his iqhts bll stict qdherence to th.e statutory requirements under the 1950 Act. In cclse there is anV deuiation from ang such requiremetlt, it tDould render the surrend.er ineffectiue and inconsequential.

26. The 1950 Act being ttre benefi.cial legislation requires interpretation to aduance social and economtc justice and enforce the constitutional directtues and, not to depiue a person of his illht to propertg. The statutory prouisions should. ftot be construed in Jauour of such depiuation. Interpretation of a bene,ficial le?Lslation uJtth a narrou pedantic approach is not justirted. In cc,.se there is ang doubt, tt\e court stLould interpret c benefi.cial leEislation in fauour of the beneficiaries dnd not othent)ise ds it uould be against the tegi.slatiue intent. For tlLe purpose of tnterpretdtion of a statute, the Act is to be read in its erttiretg. The pllrpofi and object of ttle Act must be giuen its full effect bg apptying the pinciples of purposive construction. The court must be strong against dng con-struction which tend.s to reduce a st,:ttute's utilitg- The prouisions of the statute must be construed. sc as to make it effectiue and operatiue and to Juflher tl@ ends of Jurtice and not to frustrate th.e same. The coutt ha,s the dutA to constnle the statute to promote tte object of the statute and serue the purpose for Luhich it hos been en@cted. and should not efface its ueru purpose. 4 1. There can be fto doubt tllat once a protected tenant qets a c:ertifi.cate of ouaership under Section 38 E(2) of the 1950 Act, LLe hcs a ighi to applg for restoration o/possession to hirn if he ho^s been dispossessed. The protected tenant llrs a right to ask for summary euiction of a trespasser." 8

9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioners claims to be successors of Protected Tenant of the lands in Sy.No.37, 41,44 to 47, thus the total extent of Ac.9O.27 gts. It is their case that Late Pentareddy, the grandfather of the petitioners purchased the property in Sy.No.46 admeasuring Ac. i0.13 gts from the pattadar of the lands in the year 1959 and the name of the petitioners predecessors was recorded under the provisions of Tenancy Act and a sale certificate was issued as recorded in Faisal Patti for the year 1960-61 vide File No.a/442/1959 and by virtue of the same, their grandfather has become absolute owner and pattadar of the property. Whereas the case of the respondents is that the petitioners grandfather is not entitled to purchase the property from the pattadar and in fact, their grandfather G.Lakshmaiah is in possession of the property and when their application for issuance of Ownership Certificate under Section 37A of the Act was not considered, they were constrained to file an appeal before the original authority and the appellate authority has remanded the matter for conducting a detailed enquiry over the entitlement of either of the parties for issuance of Section 38-E certificate under the provisions of the Tenalcy Act. These writ petitions have been liled calling for the records relating to Case No.F2/9a3/2O23 on the file of the respondent No.3 and declare 9 the action o[ the respondent No.3 in entertaining the Appeal filed under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 challenging the Sa,le Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners predecessors-in-interest nearly after lapse of 6O years is not maintainable. The appeai was filed in the year 2023 by the respondents under Section 90 of the Act. Questioning the ownership certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioners predecessors, it is their case that the writ petitioners predecessors purchased the propert5z in the year 1959 from the original p:rttadar and the name of the predecessors bf the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records. The Tenancy Act, came into force in the year 1950 and the effective date for consideration of the rights of the tenants is O 1.O I . 19 23. pima facie, it appears from the record that the petitioners instead of raising the grounds for entertaining an appea.l has filed this writ petition at the threshold seeking a writ of certiorari, praying this Court to prohibit the statutory authority under Section 9O of the Act, for hearing the case. ln Spectcrl Director os. Mohd. Ghulann Ghousea, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: "Unless the High Coun is saftsjted tlat the shot -cause notice was totally nqt.p-st in the ege of the taw for (tbsolute uant of juisdiction of the autfu)itu to euen inuestigate into facts, wit petitions should. not be entertaln2d for the mere asking and q.s a matter of routine, and the Lrit petitionet shoutd inuaiabtg be directed to respond to the.sholD cause o atn zoo4 sc ta6 , 10 i l i I i'i"aia"i" iis tesat premiies' is o noticeandtakeallstdnd'sfugh)ightedintheu)ritpetition.|^netherthe ::;;; :;;;;;,;;';" .luisdictionat i<gle uhich can even a" ,,g.a-ay--ii riapient o7 the notice anrl such ',:i1'":;;;;;;;; oaiuai"i'a ii tn" ou'ion'v iisuine the uery tlotice opp'o'"n ihe court Funher' uLhen i;,;;i;,-;.f*" ;;'issae'ea "iitd ;;;;;; - p;".". " ", :, " :: ^:iii; ;i ;L :ili,i: "f;* {:) ::, : ::r' i:: iX st atu t o ry fu nctio no ne s l "i' " " l, ",l"ir i "o' r i ir ir i,. mi t i o l l y d e c i d e t he n)raose Qre not denuded oJ PoL ';;ir;'";; ;;;;; tiot ,tiiiot"-n1ii1 -ni"n mas or.mav.not be finatts nlt o"i"d"d to the Loit petitioner cuen at oranted in the wit Petition '" ii'in ""i.ili In CfT us. Chhcrhit Doss Agaruals' the Honlole Apex Court ai,i i'teim protection sronted', p 10 observed as follows: oil'"iitii -'?f"7a i' ,l5....theHighCounuillnotentertainapetition.underArticle226ofthe to the constitution i7 an 'T'ctiuL u'i"' which the oction c,omploined of o(tqrieued person or tnt "titui" ias been taken itself contiiis o- me'honism 1or-redressal. of grieuance -pinno" iiua na be enlefldined stillholdsthefield.rtn,"fon,"*n..""statutoryforumisc,reatedbqlaw for redressal o7 ga"uo'""'"l'o* -ii 'fqn oang tl,e storutory dispe nsot ion ^.?!":Idbte 1 1. The issues raised in these writ petitions i'e' whether the statutory authority is conferred with power to decide the appeals filed by the respondents is no longer res integra irt view of catena In ujian Bhai us' The of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court State o! UE'6, it was held as follows: "19.... Juisd.iction me..ns quthoita to decide' .wh,encuel-1.1;1!icial or required to enquire into a ouasi-iudicial tribun(.l ts T,Z:i1;;';;i";';l pct 1o' 'i"i"'pi'" o.7 siui"s @ d:-cis^i:n^:'n it' its "^pi*"-r"a inriinas thereon cannot be r^p{o.i"a cotialerattg or oft an apPlication ';;:::;";,;;;L;;,;;"-bindins untrt reuersed on oppeat '

72. For the aforesaid reasons' the claim of the petitioners questioning the entertainment of appeal in Case No'F2/9a312023 ' (zora) r scc eo: t atR tg6z sc 1621 * 11 by the respondent No.3 under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, is not required to be interfered exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the matters are at threshold ald any decision or enquiry either on question of law or facts and findings recorded thereon would have arr impact over the decision making authority, even with regard to the issue relating to the jurisdiction. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 shall dispose of the appeal without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court on merits, in accordance with law.

13. Accordrngly, these Writ petitions are dismissed. There sha_I1 be no order as to costs- Miscell:ineous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I NOTE:.That the petitioner counsel name ,, Katika ,<avrnder Reddy". and ,,Sri M. Satish Kumar,,the .uommon order dated 12.0J.2025 in W.PNo.1494.r anc 16221 or zozs1w:p-.i;:rozZi .;;kd';;Jil; of 20231 has not t,een read "nd same has been adrjed suo motu. .. This amended order shall substitute the earlier-ord-er which has atreaay Ueen ai;;;;d;; on 24.07.2024 //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 One CC to Sri Shaik Abdul Kalam Riyaz, Advocate [OPUC One CC to Sr Katika Ravinder Red dy, Adovcate Two CCs to (iP for Revenue, High Court for the Hyderabad lourl 4. One CC to Sri lvl 5. Two CD Copies Satish Kumar, Advocate ,#- TJ LS SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTRAR N'1i:11-'_" \secroruo [ to PUC] S tate of Telangana, at FFICER HIGH COTJRT DATED:1210312025 l HE S fA rc ( c r.) 23 tutl 26 f. r+ P',11cH AMENDED COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION Nos.1494f and f 6221 ot 2023 DISMlSSING THE WRIT PETtTtONS WITHOUT .COSTS 4 ?\ -y6 b