The High Court · 2025

17 Sri Srisarlam,. S/o Balaiah, age. Major, Occ. Agriculture

18. Ramulu, S/o. Narayana. age. Major, Occ. Agriculture

19. Erra Seenaiah, S/o. Sathaiah, aged Ma1or, Occ. Agriculttr e Respondent No. 11 lo 1S are Rio li4asigundlapallyViltage, Mrdjil Mandal t lahabirb Nagar District ..RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petrtron under Section '1 5'1 CpC praying that in the I rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou r rnay be pleased be pleased to permit the petitioner to serve notices to Resp cndents S,15 & 16 through substitute service by paper publication in the interes of justice and pass such other order oi' orders. as this court may deem f t and proper in the circumstances of the case lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ( ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High cotr t may be pleased to suspend the order passed in Flt z3l 2018, dated stlztzo 1 ) on the file of Joint collector, Mahabubnagar. pending disposal of the above I vil Revision petition and pass such other suitable order. as this court may deerr fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. A ANASUyA Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR APPEALS The Court made the following: ORDER ----:w@ryr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CTVIL REVISION PETTTION NO.1340 OF 2O2I ORDER: This Civil Revision Petitiorl is filed by the petirioners aggrieved by the order, dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Appeal No.F1 /23/20 18.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are the legal heirs of the [Joint Patta holders] i.e., Sri Khandoba Naik s/o Govindu naik and Sri Ramchalder Rao s/o Seshagiri Rao. Sri Khandoba Naik died on 02.08.1998 and Sri Ramchander Rao died on O6.04. 1987, leaving behind the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.4 and 5 as their successors to their estate. The names of late Sri Khandoba Naik and that of late Sri Ramchander Rao were reflected as pattadars in the Khasra Pahani (1954-55). It is further stated that at the material time when the A.P (T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture lands Act, 1950 has come into operation, and even prior to that, one Sri G.Pentaiah s/o Sayanna u'as in possession of the entire extent of land to an extent of Acs.16.01 gts., ln Sy.No.35 of Masigundlapally village of Midjil Mandal, and hence, he was declared as protected tenant. A tenancy certihcate in Form 2 No.VI of the Act was issued in his favour for th,: , ntire area of Acs.16.01 gts., in S1..No.35 of Masigundlapally v.. age of Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as per Khasra ) rhani for the year 1954-55.

3. It is further stated that as per the or.: ers issued in G.O.Ms.No. 125 of 1973, dated 22.O2.1973 and i . virtue of his possession over the suit schedule lands on Cr 11.1973, the protected tenant Sn G. Pentaiah \\/as gran t : I ou,nership certificate under section 38 E of the A.P(T.A) lenalrcy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 (for short ,.The Tr:rr rncv Act,') for an extent of Acs.O8 01 gts., from out of t I lrl extent of Acs.16.0l gts., leaving balance of Acs.0g.O0 St.; , in Sy.No.35 of Masigundlapally village of Midjil mandal ll, tht: Revenue Divisiona-l Officer, Mahabubnagar in Form No.I I of Tenancy Act vide RDO's off-rce, reference No.Bl2g /74, irJr ng with other Sy.Nos.36 and 42 of Masigundiapally village of lt djil Mandat.

4. It is further stated that in the Kh a s ra pahali for the year 1954-55, in the occupants column, the narne of Mr.G.Pentaiah (protected tenant) is recorde,l but in the certificate, his name is mentioned as T.pentaia-, it may be by 3 oversight or by the clericai mistake. It is further contended that the niune of protected tenant in the Khasra Pahani being there mentioned as Mr.G.Pentaiah to an extent of Acs.08.OO under the '['enanc1, Act and Mr.G.Pentaiah was in possessron of the remaining land for ri,hich he has no certificate. The issue no\ r a-rose is that Mr.G.Pentaiah has sold away the property to the third parties and the petitioners made an application before the .Ioint Collector under section 10 of the Tenancy Act against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Midjil Mandal in respect ol the land in Sy.No.35 an extent of Acs.O8.OO guntas

5. In the said application filed by the petitioner, it is contended that Sri Tapa Pentaiah continued to be in possession over the said land as cultivator for the entire extent of Acs. 16-0 I guntas, as ot\rner for an extent of Ac.8-O 1 guntas ald for balance extent of Ac.8-00 guntas he continued his possession as a tenant, for which Ownership Certihcate is not been issued. It is the contention of the petitioner before the Joint Collector that later on he sold away not only an extent of Ac.8-O1 guntas tn Sy.No.35 (for which he was granted Ownership Certificate under section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act - 1950 in Form No.II *,ffi I i 4 by the R.D.O. Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No.Bl2a74, dated: -NIL- in favour of G.Pentaiah), but also sci, i the balance extent of Ac8-OO Guntas of land in Sy.No.I i for w-hich Ownership Certilicate was not issued.

6. It is further contended that the lanc in Sy.No.35 measuring extent of Ac.8-O I guntas for Ou,nersl ip Certificate has been issued under section 38-E of the Acr u,:rs sold to respondent Nos. 3 to 7, and the balance ar.r I of Acs.U 00 guntas was sold to respondent Nos.B to I6 u.itl r ut orvnership rights either under section 38, I38-A, 3B-B or t5 E ol thc Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that the P Sri G.Pentaiah, in whose favour the orvnershilt ertifrcate r.rras - ,tected tenant granted, sold away the propertv after expiry of ei ;ht years from the date of grant of ownership certihcate, bu , r_he extent of balance area of Ac.O8-OO guntas in Sy.No l Ii caanot be alienated without getting ownership rights un,l:r Section 38, 38-A, 38 B, or 38-E of the Acr.

7. The learned Joint Collector, having :onsidered the entire material placed on record, came to a corL, lusion that as per the Khasra Pahani 1954 55, the land bt., r.ing Sy.No.3S ."1" 5 extent Acs. 16.01 guntas of Masigundlapally village of Midjil Mandal which stands Patta in the names of Khandoba naik s/o Govind Rao and Ramchandar Rao s/o Seshagiri Rao. Sri Ztnkal.a Pentaiah s/o Ananthaiah and Tappa Pentaiah s/o Sayanna u'ere recorded as P.Ts against the above land. It was further revealed that Sri T.Pentaiah s/o Sayanna had been conferred u,ith orvnership rights under section 38-E of the Tenalcy Act to an extent of Acs.OB-O1 guntas in Sy.No35 of Masigundlapally villge of Midjil Mandal in Ref.No.D/28174 of the Additional revenue Dir.isional Officer (LR), Mahabubnagar.

8. The marn plea of the appellants is that the ownership rights under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950 to an extent of Acs.OB-O I guntas of Masigundlapally Village of Midjil Mandal and that 38-E holder has sold out the balance extent of Acs.O8 00 guntas to third parties. The appellants herein have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his title and possession over the suit land, hence the same was dismissed.

9. The main contention of the petitioner is that an application was hled for cancellalion of the entries which are i t, l I l t' l l I l I I I * I I I 6 t effected in ROR and other registers and also -, cancel the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds issued in he namc of respondent Nos.B to 16 and restore the possessi: I of the said extent of Acs.08-0O guntas to the appeltants Nos 1 and 2 both as Pattadars and cultivators, since the protect:1 Tenant Sri G.Pentaiah has sold the said suit land measurirl an extent of .{cs.O8 00 guntas., in Sy.No.3S of Masigundlapi lly Vrllage of Midjil Mandal u.ithout consent of the pattadzLr: or his legal heirs, as provided under section 44 of the Act.

10. The main grievance of the petitio I L r t>efore. the Joint Collector was that the alienation in favor r1- respondent Nos.8 to 16 measuring extent of Acs.O8-OO g _ rtas same is liable to be cancelled since P.T. Sri. G. pentale - . has violated the provision as laid down under section 30(1 ) rf the A<:t. As per which the Joint Collector outght to have b. :n decided by him, is any ownership certihcate was issur:rl in favour of Sri G. Pentaiah or whether there was any r i rlation of the provision as laid down under section 3(1) of thr: I ct.

11. Admittedly, as per the contention o. the petitioner, Sri G.Pentaiah was a protected tenant and n,:l; in occupation i 1 i I I l ! I i i I I I I i I I I t. I I l 7 of the said land, but he r,r,as not gralted ownership rights in respect of the Acs.08-00 guntas of the land which is sold to the respondent Nos.S to 16 L2. The said aspect of whether the said Sri G.Pentaiah was given the Ovvnership Certificate or not has to be determined and the relief sought for by the petitioner should have been considered. Before considering the same, it is necessary for the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the ownership ceftifrcate had been granted to Sri G.Pentaiah under section 38(E) of the said order, unless until the same is decided, the relief which is sought for by the petitioners cannot be decided.

13. As such, it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the Joint Collector for deciding the fact whether the said G.Savanna was granted Ownership Certilicate or not and then proceed further as per the law L4. Hence, with these observations, the CRP is set aside and the case is remarded back to Joint Collector for deciding the matter afresh, especially 1n respect of the Ownership Certificate issued in respect of Sri G.Pentaiah and 1i I , I I ! I I i i j 8 the question as to whether arry ownership certifit:r te has been issued to Sri G.Pentaiah and consequently to de I de as to the transactions whrch are held by Sri G.Pentaiah n favour of re spondent Nos.B to 16 are valid or not pald p:r..: appropriate orders accordingly.

15. Accordingly, the Civit Revision Petiric-r is alloured setting aside the order passed by the learned ,J: rrt Collector, Mahabubnagar in Appeal No.Fll23 l2Ol8, datr r 05.12.2019 and matter is remanded back for deciding the apl cal afresh by the Joint Collector as per law as early and as r:r:. cditiouslr. as possibie. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending i r rhis revision petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL I):PUTY REGISTRAR TSECTION OFFICER t \ I I To,

1. The Joint Collector Mahabubnagar. Mahabubnagar Di:,1 ict.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabub Nagar, Maha rubnagar District. 3 Tahsildar, Midjil Mandal, Mahabub Nagar District 4. One CC to SRi A ANASUYA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS ,High Court for the Star€ of Telangana [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies b, ::-;-.EE F .J *il@-\. 'e\t [ ] ;rrr 7q15 l)i .l /, sw$/ {+'lr i HIGH COURT DATED:29110t2025 ALLOWED CRP.No.1340 ot 2021

0.,I q V