1 . Udari Krishna Murthy v. Department, Secretariat' Hyderaoao

Petition rncr r section 151 cpc praying that in the circurnslances stated in the affidavit firr:cl r surport of the petition, the High court nay be preased to direct the respr)rc: ''ts more particurarry respondent No.3 and 4 rot to interfere with the posses s ,t .r r, the petitioners. Counsel for the pe li.:iorrer : SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Rer;r:orrdents No.1to3 : ASST. Gp FOR REVENUT: COUNSEI for RESPONICNT hIO.4:SRI KIRAN KUMAR GATTU,SC FOR BHCIODAN BOARD The Court made the rollowing: ORDER Page I oflS BVR"J wP No.26458 ot 2022 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B' VTJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIO N No.26468 OF 2022 ORDER: Order in Proceedings No'B/169i2019 dated O8'06'2022 passed by respondent No'3 - the Tahsildar' Ghatkesar Mandal' Ghatkesar,MedchalDistrict,isquestionedinthiswritpetitionas being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14' 19(1Xg)' 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India'

2.1. The record hled in the writ petition reveals that respondent No.4 - the Secretary, Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board' GandhiBhavan,Nampally,Hyderabad"approachedrespondent No.3 and fuinished list of Bhoodan lands of Edulabad Village' GhatkesarMandal,MedchalDistrict'toincorporatetheland admeasuring Acs.20-00 in Survey Nos'1080 and 1084 situated in Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' as Bhoodan Lands

2.2. Accordingly, respondent No'3 issued a Memo bearing No.BE1/900/2006 dated 23'09'2006' to the then Panchayat Page, of 15 BV&J $ P N( .26{68 ot2022 a .::. Secretarv ldrLlabad Village, to record the subject lan,l in the revenr e I (,1 ()r(ls as Bhoodan Land. The panchaylt S:cretary, Edulabarl i illi.ge complied with the orders of respondent No.3 record nq t r: srrbject land as Bhoodan Land. i',.\ .,\ggrieved by the Memo No.BEIr900 200,i dated 23.09.200r' is:rued by respondent No.3 dared 23.(:9.2006, W.P. No.lt.l3 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner Nos. l. .t herein and tw,r ,r l, rr.s viz., (l) Mr. Udari Satyana rayana, (2t Mr. Udari Shiv Kur,rr' (3) Mr. Udari Krishna Murthy and (4) \,Ir Udari Sudersha n r' to el.e the sons of late Mr. Udari Lax maialL, r :sident of TenugLul,: r, Harnlet of Korremal Village, Gl_ratkesar. N landal. Medcha[-1,4::1<ajr3iri Distnct. The writ petition was ckslrcserlof by the order dr::r1 20.06.2019 setting aside the impugne<l \4t.mo in respect l1' 1,. srrbiect land with a direction to conduc e rquiry afresh. ln c -.r rol ance of the same, respondent No.3 issrLecl notices to the p:ritnrLcrs and others by calling upon thern tc irlt their claims ard r- jec tions along with documents; and the p(:tltroners frled their \v- thln arguments. Upon considering the clarnrs rf the Pago 5 of15 BYR,J WP No.26468 o12022 petitioners and their contentions, impugned order in Proceedings No.Bi 169/2019 dated 08.06.2022 was passed by respondent No 3'

2.4. The case of the petitioners is that sale certificate was issued to their father Mr. Udari Laxmaiah under Section 38(6) of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short 'Tenancy Act 1950') on 27 '05'1967 rn File No.FV2213167 in respect of the tand in Survey Nos'1080 and 1084, and another Certificate in File No'IV2551167 in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.1083 and 1087 on the same date' Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 presupposes existence of protected tenancy rights right from 1950' Assuming that Raja Triyambak Nandlat was the owner and pattadar of the subject land in 1954, the father of the petitioners who was protected tenant of the same much prior to that had a pre-existing right. Section 2() of the Telangana Bhoodan and Gramadan Act 1965 (for short 'Bhoodan Act') defines who is owner which also includes a protected tenant' In view of the said provision, the alleged donation by Raja Triyambak Nandlal and consequential acceptance by respondent No'3 is void ab initio ' Page 6 of t5 B VR,J \\I No.16468 ot 2022 The transf l" of and is illegal in view of Section 36(6) rurd ig(6) of the Terran:i A,:t 1950 and Section 2@@) of the Bhcodln Act. relinqu shr )it,t rajinama made on 17.03.1954 and its lLcc:ptance by resp'rndrr t No.3 on 26.03.1963 are equally void. 3 t, F :spondent No.3 filed counter affidavit contend ng that that pursuar-t 10 the orders passed by this Courl in W.F,. Nc,.15223 of 2007 rlr ed 20.06.2019, W.p. No.162929 ,rf ltC20 dated 14 12.2t)a1.0 rrd C.C. No.833 of 2021 dared 17.06.2012 rorices were issr-r,:,l to the petitioners by respondent No 4. l. c etailed enquiry \4 it:. : on(lucted.

3.;!. 3asing on the documentary evidence ar.aila rle on record, in-Lp l!rne([ order dated 08.06.2022 was passed clircctrng the petitioners () iipproach appropriate forum for redressal o,- their grievance: r. the subject lands are recorded in the na ne of respondent r r.4 - Bhoodan yagna Board, respondent No.., does not have prt i t r to rectify the entries unless those lands rrr: d:leted and the ass r:unonts made therein are cancelled; the putitroners Pege 7 of15 BV&J WP No.26468 of2022 have to challenge the donations and relinquishment of original patta before the appropriate forum and get the order rectiffing the revenue records. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief'

4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is contended that the original pattadar Raja Triyambak Nandlal has donated the subject lands to respondent No.4 and relinquished his rights through the rajinama dated 17.03'1954 much prior to the alleged Tenancy Cerlihcate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 dated 03.05.1967 issued in favour of Mr' Udari Laxmaiah, son of Mr. Udari Pochaiah and Mr. Mettu Enkaiah, son of Mr. Mallaiah. The Bhoodan Act came into force with effect from 10.05.1965 and the subject land donated to the Board prior to the Bhoodan Act automatically vested in the Board by operation of the Act. The subject land was donated by the Pattadar Raja Triyambak Nandlal on 26.01.1954. He executed relinquishment deed on 17 .03 .1954 and the same was accepted by respondent No'3 vide File No.El/1048/1963 dated 23-03.1963 whereas the Tenancy Certificate under Section 38(6) of Tenancy Act 1950 was issued in

1967. Page 8 ot l5 BVR,J $ P N( 26468 of 2022

5. I lear',1 Mr. Vijay B. paropkari, leamed corrrrse for the petitioner; leamed Assistant Government pleader lr,r. Levenue appearine 'lr r:spondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Kiran I.,l mr.r Gattu, leamerl Ij'i r rding Counsel for respondent No.4 _ Bhoo lar Board, and pe:rr:it:rl tlre material on record.

6. Se ,, tion 2fi)(a) of the Bhoodan Act reads as uncer In this Act, unless the context otherwi:;e re,luires,_ ! ) owner' includes- 1) a protected tenant under the A.ndlua Prad:. h(T'elangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculttlal Lands ,a.ct, 1950 who has been personally cultir.atine tl,e land under his protected tenancy at the time rtf clotat,on. in rr:sot rr rrf the rightpossessedby him in the land;,

7. I 1' t leamed counsel for the petitioners rel iecl rn the additional ,l r:unrents filed along with Memo dated (t5 0!, 2024 The Khasra ,thani ofEdulabad Village, Ghatkesar Taluqa r:flects the follor.l ir e :nties: SUR \,EY No. I LAND NAME CESS 4 1084 10-00 BVR,J W? No.2646E of 2022 PATTADA R NAME INAMDAR NAME ,| PATTADAR NAME O'I}IER RTGHT YEAR CULTIVATION l3 I t5 t6 t'l TRAIMBA K LAL TRAMBAI( LAL 1954 55 PADAVA MUSUGU MALLAIAH S/o MALLAIAH UDARI LAXMAIAH S/o POCHAIAH METTU \.ENKAIAH S/o MALLAIAH METTU MALLAIAH S/o KOMURAIAH DOLILATH RAJU S/o GANESH PERSHAD MUSUGU METTAIAH BAKKANI GUDAI 0,5-4 UDARI LAXMAIAH 0-24 METTU YENKAIAH 0-2 8 METTU MALLAIAH KORREMLILA 0-2-8 DOTJLATH RAII] 0-2-8 HYDERABAD

8. The Faisal Patti (endorsement of mutation of patta) of the Edulabad Village, Sharki Taluqa, Hyderabad District for the year 1967 -68 discloses name of the protected tenant Mr' Udari Laxmaiah as purchaser of the land admeasuring Acs'20 00 in SurveyNos.l084 and 1080. Accordingly, name of the owner Raja Triyambak Lal was directed to be removed and name of Mr' Udari Laxmaiah was incorporated' It is mentioned in Column No'1l of Page l0 of 15 BVR"J \\ I'N .26.168 of2022 the KhiLs.i PalLani that the land to an extent of Acs.20 C0 in Survev No. 1C 8a r nd 1080 with an assessment cess of n,.Zt,. t t *as recorced i" th,: name of Raja Triyambak Lal and pelnris.;ion may be grante I trr' :ecording the name of the protected tenarl. l{r. Udari Laxmirial n Dispatch No.2213/67 dated Zl .(t5 1967 and permissicr ntaT be sanctioned under wargkami (decre,rse cf extent) for d,:let n I the name of Raja Triyambak lral; .tyt,t Iizafa (Ain z\.s: r: sment; Izafa - Itcrease/addition) was sant:tron:d in the name rr1't t( Dr()tected tenant Mr. Udari Laxmaiah. It i: thus clear, by the lirr : tlLe subject lands were allegediy donatccl 5y Raja Triyanrha< Nardlal to the Bhoodan Board in 1954. \4.. Udari Laxma iah r as ;tlready a protected tenant and subscquenr ly in 1961 , he wa:; s:r. ed ownership Certihcate under Section 3li(6 t of the Tenan(r) r.: l!'50. !,. li'u, the question that arises for consideration in ihls writ petitiorL is ,vhether a land burdened with protected tenrrncy rights could havt -eer donated by the pattadar to the Board?, Page lr or 15 B\'&J WP No.2646E 0f2022

10. Respondent No.3 recorded the following findings in the impugned order "On verification of the Revenue records, documents and records filed by both parties it is construetl that, as per the Revenue records, the Donor namely, Sri Raja Triyambak Nandlal was the pattedar/land owner in the subj ect lands and he has donated the subject lands to A P' Bhoodan Yagana Board and relinquished his rights over the subject lands through Rajinama dated 17.03.1954, prior to the issue of certificates U/s 38(6) vide File No.tV22l3167 arrd File No.tV2551167 dated 03-05-1961 in favour of Sri. Udan Laxmaiah S/o Pochaiah and Sri Mettu Enkaiah S/o.Ma11aiah. In the said UA'38(6) certificate' it is clearly mentioned that, Sri.Raja Triyambak Nandlal Sio Raja Mohan Lal, was the Pattedar of the subject lands' The Bhoodan Act 1965 came into force w.e.f. 10 05 1965 and all the lands donated to the Board prior to the said Act, automatically stood vested in the Board by operation of law i e-, the Bhoodan Act 1965. In this case the land was donated by the pattadar in the yeu 1954 i.e., on 26.01.1954 and executed Relinquishment / Rajinama on 17.03.1954 and the same was accepted by the Tahsildar, vide ref No:E1l1 04811963 dt:23 01'1963' Whereas, the certificate issued in 1967 ('05'1967)' under the provisions of subsection 6 of Section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act XXI 1950, by the time of issuance of certificate U/s 38(6) to the petitioner the pattadar was not having any right / title over the subject land' I}VR"J \r'P a o.26168 of 2022 T he Government officials are duty bounderl ro I mplcment trr( jrshuctions and guide liens if any issued time tr time to pr( t,-.t tte interest over the government land and slrfe guarcl the !t() ..r lment properties. It is for the petitioner, aggrieved by the acti,)n of the p rt lr lar and Bhoodan Board at the hrst instance t [re,, har,.e to cr-ra [ ( ng{: the Relinquishment/ Rajinama given bV th( pattadar ul( ( r rh( provisions of Bhoodan Act 1965 and its ac cc rtance by tlr,: rhr)n Tahsildar, Hyderabad East l.;lu < vide I--.1,i, .lili 1048/1963, Dt:23.03.1963 anrl after lbr. recressal of srr.\Ifc( if any, they have to proceed by puttinrr ,-vtdcnce of .ht:i ' ri-ulrts under the provision of Telangana [.er ancy & .{Slr' , rttu -al Lands Act 1950 before the authonry c )mpetent rrr: J : appropriate forum of law. With the above obscrvtrLions the r:a:;e I ,lisposed Off.', ll, Respor ,i:nt No.3 held that the petitionel canno claim ownershrt )n the strength of ownership Certifictte under Section 36(( ) of the Tenancy Act 1950 issued in 1967 w ren the pattada;'r'i;r.r I lorrl has donated the same in 1954 and r.ajr nama / relinquishrr r.rt was accepted by respondent No._: in 1963. In the ooin (,.r 01'this Court, when the subject land is burden,:d rvith protected t )r:ancy rights, the transfer of land under sale rr gift, as the citse .r ry be, can be only subject to protected tenarcy rights. Page 13 ofl5 BV&J w? No.2546E of 2022 TheprovisionsoftheBhoodanAct'moreparticularly' Section 2(i)(a) of the Bhoodan Act, recognizes the right of a protected tenant. The said provision clearly indicates that a land whichisdonatedcannotbetransferredabsolutelyinfavourofthe Board unless the protected tenant also gives consent' A tenant or a protected tenant, as the case may be, cannot alienate the land as he has a limited interest over the land and not title' Thus' for absolute transfer of title, it is necessary for both landlord and tenant to donate. The rights of the protected tenancy would not get extinguished merely because there has been donation of the land by the pattadar Raja Triyambak Nandlal in favour of respondent No'4' As per Section 104 of the Tenancy Act 1950' this Act has overriding effect over other enactments' Tenancy cannot be terminated except in accordance with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act 1950. So long as the subject land is encumbered and covered by the protected tenancy rights, the alleged transfer of subject land in 1954 wder rajinama cannot be absolute'

12. A person is deemed to be protected tenant as per Section 34 of the Tenancy Act 1950 if he has held the subject land as Page l4 of l5 Dv&J \','P N ).26468 of 2022 tenan _ r:olirnilously for a period of not less than sjx .6) betwe.en l'r.r1z vears 1343 to 1352 (1933 to 1942) or rrmnediately precerfinl rhc. l" day of January l94g or not earlier than tire 1.r day of the tir,'r lear 1353 (6,h October 1943). The Khrsrr pahani (1954 55 i nd Faisal patti (1967_6g) clearly reflects nrrre of Mr. Udari La i r rairrh as protected tenant. Thus, prior to thc alleged . donatiu 1195:L) of the subject lands to respondent No.,.t [y 16" Raja 1'rivrrrbak Nandlal, Mr. Udari Laxmaiah antl l\ll.. I,ochaiah had pre-erit,ing protected tenancy rights over the same . Such protecterl t_'nancy rights cannot be negated or .vor_rld get extingr.Li ;he t bv the alleged donation made by the Iardlord / pattedar- . t s crucial aspect has been missed ort b,r. t_esltondent No.3 ir rh'' nrpugned order. Respondent No.3 failed t. norice that the prc-t:x :. irg (prior to 1954) protected tenancy riglrts of Mr. Udari l.arr Lh irave enlarged into ownership rights (in 1\,67) by virtue c,f t ) r rncy certificate under Section 3g(6) of tit, T enancy Act 1950

13. I r ,r rhe aforesaid reasons, the impugnerl or der is unsustainabl: anrl liable to be set aside. Pase tS or15 BV&J WP No.2646A of 2022

14. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order in proceedings No.B/l69/2009 dated 0g.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioners respect of the subject land 1n admeasuring Acs.20-00 in Survey Nos.l0g0 and l0g4 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District, without reference to the relinquishment deed / rajinama dated 17 .03.1954 by following due process of law and relevant provisions ollhe record of rights. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPYII One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice B.VIJ (For His Lordship's Kind perusal) SD/.T.VIJAY KUMAR E UTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER EN REDOY

1. 11 LR Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad. \ To,

4. The Principal. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of I elangana, Hyderabad

5. The District Collector, Medchal District, At Keesara, Medchal District. 6. The Tahasildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, At Ghatkesar, Medchal District 7. The Secretary,Telangana Bhoodan yagna Board, Office at Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad \ I t .,1 1 ,*

8. One CC) ro It tt \/tJAy B PAROPAKARI, Advocate. [OpLrC ] 9. TworCCs k, (ip rOR REVENUE, High Courtforthe State cf .felangana \ 10 fl#aPa: to : {ll t<'lRJqN KUMAR GATTU, sc for Bhoodar Yagrna Board. . I I i I 1 1 . Two CD Cc p,l :s. BSKW .T,e ' *]{n HIGH COURT DATED:21 l0zll2t025 CC TODAY \ -'-.. :..:\ -'- 1E , : s-I l\ ? .l

1..j 'i$h ,-,, I I 'rri\\ \1 ) c \\.) )r^'i. "/A, '-.' t l-, I !. \>. -'j' ORDER WP.No.2646i8 of 2022 I I I i I I I I I i l I I i I l -THE ALLOWING WITHOUT CCISTS WRIT PETITION /1 1:- ii \1,.