The High Court · 2025

Petition under Order 5 Rule 20 (1-A) of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order notice to Respondents No.2 to 6 herein by way of substituted service by publishing notices in any leading Telugu daily news paper, Mahabubnagar Distrrct Edition in the above CRP No. 1344 of 2O21. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri N Praveen Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Arbitration ( No representation) Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 6 : - Counsel for the respondents 7&8:- The Court made the following: ORDER wv//' TIIE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADIIA RANI CML R-EVISION PETITION No.l344 of 2021 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate (FAC), Mahaboobnagar District in Case No.Fl/8549/2018, dated 26.07.2019 in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners herein under Section 90(l) of the Telangana State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, l950.on the ground ofdelay. i

2. No representation by the learned Govemment Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondent No. I . Notices were served on the respondent Nos.2 to 6 by substitute service through paper publication on I I .01 .2023. However, there is no representation for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

3. Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners.

4. The leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and their ancestors were in possession of the land admeasuring 2 DT.GRR.J CRP No.I34 of 2021 an extent of Acs. 16.38 gts., situated in Sy. No.677 of Yedira Village, Mahabubnagar ( U ) Mandal since I 940. The name of the petitioners' ancestor Kame Narsaiah was continued as a protected tenant in the Tenancy Register titl 2016. The petitioners were thr. legal heirs of the protected tenant and they cultivated the land fiom 1940 to 2012. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 - l-andlords evicted the petitioners in the year 2013. The version of the respondents that they surrendered their protected tenancy rights orally was not correct. The petitioners came to knoiv about the allegations ol oral surrender ol protected tenancy rights in the year 2018, when the respondent Nos.2 to 6 stated in their petition filed before the Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar. They were not aware of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar (U) on 06.06.2016 and came to know about the same only in 2018 and immediately thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector. The leamed Joint Collector ought to have appreciated the lact that when the Statute mandates a Jrarticular procedure in surrendering the protected tenancy rights, the Statutory Authorities could not presume that there was oral surrender in the absence of records to that effect. The l'ahsildar, Mahabubnagar (U) Mandal unilaterally without following due procedure rounded off the name of the petitioners' ancestor 3 Dt.GRRJ CRP No.tial of202t Kame Narsaiah on the basis of an alleged oral surrender, which was contrary to law. The order passed by the Tahsildar in File No.B/3857/2016 dated 06.06.2016 was not made available to the petitioners despite the order was prejudicial to the statutory rights of the petitioners. The petitioners made an application to the office of the Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar (U) for issuance of the copy of the order in Fite No.B/3857/2016, dated 06.06.2016. The same was rejected by virtue of proceedings dated 03.12.2020 in Lr.No.F/2000/2020 stating that the'fite was not available. The said endorsement dated 03.12.2020 would give an impression that the order dated 06.06.2016 was non-existing and fictitious. Therefore, the leamed Joint Collector erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, having entered and recorded a finding on the merits of the case with regard to the surrender of PT rights and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mani lVloopanar v. IC Rajammal and Othersr, Surendra G. Shankar & Another and Dilip Kumar v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.2.

5. Perused the record. ' 1u oosy r t scc too 2 Civil Appeal Nos.928 of2025 aud 929 ol2O25 d,ated,22.01.2023. 4 DtcRR,t CRP No.l314 ol202I

6. The impugned order would disclose that the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar had entered into the merits of the case while dismissing the petition fited for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioners herein. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mani Moopanar case (1 supra) held that the exercise under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be limited to examining the sufficiency of cause shown to explain the delay. The Couft may not condone the delay on taking an overall view of the matter on merits, as erroneously done by the High Court in ihe said case. The Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that: "4. The High Court x,as required to go into the question ol'srrfticiency of cause shou,n to condone the inc,rdinate delar o1'2598 days which it did not do and. rnstead. proceeded to allou, the revision petitions on tal:ing an orcr.rll r ier', ('l llte matter or: rnerits.

5. In uur vicw. the High Court has erred in reversing the order of the trial court relirsing ro cohdone the delav. It \^,as open to thc High Court to accept the explanation givcn b1. Ihc respondcnts fbr condoning the delay but. rrithout setting aside the tindings of the trial court on the sutliciencl ol'cause shorvn. it $,as not permissible for the lligh Court to enter itrto the merits of the dispute and condone the dela1,.''

7. In Surendra G. Shankar and Another caser (2 supra) also the Hon'ble Apex Oourt held that: 5 DI.GNRJ CRP No. I )U of 202 I '8. .. . . ... Once the High Courl opined that in normal circumstances the delay ought to have been condoned, it ought not to have commented upon the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019, particularly, when the Appellate Tribunal. Mumbai had not dealt with the correctness of those orders. In such circumstances, the High Court should have set aside the order rejecting the detay condonation application, condoned the delay and restored the appeals on the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for consideration on merits.

9. ......the scope ofthe appeal before the High Court was limited to examining the correchress of the order of the Appellatc Tribunal. Murntrai declining condonatiorr of delay. Only when the delay is condoned, the merits ofthe order could be examined by the Appellate coutt." l

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the knowledge of the petitioners-appellants was material for condoning the delay and they had clearly stated in their petition that they came to know about the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar (U) in the year 2018 when the respondents Nos.l to 5 filed the oral surrender copy before the Tahsitdar, Mahabubnagar (U). g. As the Joint Collector had gone into the merits of the matter while dismissing the petition for condonation of delay, it is considered fit I l t I to set aside the order dated26.07.2019 passed in Case No.8549/2018 by the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate (FAC)' Mahabubnagar' .:.. 6 DT CRRJ CRP No.l3U of 2021 Considering merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the knowledge of the petitioners was material for condoning the delay and the affidavit filed by the petitioners would disclose that they came to know about the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 06.06.2016 only in the year 2018, it is considered fit to condone the delay of626 days in filing the appeal.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Joint Collector & Additionat Districr Magistrate (FAC), Mahabubnagar in Case No.Fl/8549/2018, dated 26.07.')-Ol9 and the delay of 626 days in fiting the appeal by the petitioners is condoned. The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate (FAC), Mahabubnagar shall decide the matter on merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioners to submit their case on merits. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pendin g, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII ^...g[l#aislHT ,$eUlou orrrcen \ 1 The J-oint Collector. IVlahabubnagar District 2 One CC to Sri N pr: u, fuilif;;]#iff [ ffl.il ;$tl.;?liJ,",[y BL ." o r re,a n s a n a a t 4. Two CD Copies ADK/sh *"^-. l I I HIGH COURT DATED:27101t2025 --'"'4 ORDER CRP.No.1344 ot 2021 tB;. /-, I,J i ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 41'-::==t--:\ ' - ,L srA- ('( ! 21 iriLil ;: r * O6 S:'J l'-\ \