The High Court · 2025

13.. Smt. A. RAJAMANI, Wo Kummari Ramchan ler Age.56 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o. H.No.9-180, Brundavan Colony. \ eerpet,-Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. _(Proposed Petitioner No.13 is brought on record as I Rs of the deceased Petitioner No.6 as per court order dated 0810612023 in 1,1 No. 412023) ...Petitioner/Res g ondents/Petitioners AND

1. The Joint Collector-ll Ranga Reddy. District., Goshamaha , Hyderabad 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga leddy District. 3. M Chinnapu Reddy-., S/o. layqp leddy Agricutture, R/o I ledunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

4. lghana Bop.e n9{{y, S/o.i\/alla Reddy Agricutture, R/o. I edunur Viilage Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy Distri'ct - -

5. G.Bal fgddy, Slo Malla ReddyAgricutture, R/o. Nedunu Viilage Kandukur mandal Ranga Reddy District.

6. A.Narayana Reddy-., S/o. Ram Reddy Agriculture, R/o. N: lunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy Disirict.

7. E.Malla Reddy, Sio. Ram Reddy Agriculture, R:/o. Nedurrr r Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District. -

8. Biumi Reddy, SJo. Venkat Reddy Agriculture, R/o. Nedr. r ur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District. .4Fry --,,7 (Respondent 7 and 8 dismissed for default vide Court Order dt:30/03/2015)

9. B.Mallaiah, S/o. Pullaiah Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy Diskict

10. B.Pochaiah, S/o. Pullaiah Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District. '1 '1 . B.Sathaiah, S/o. Pullaiah Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

12. N.Bhavaiah, S/o. Sayanna, Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

13.M.Ramulu, S/o. Sayanna Agril., R/o. NedunurVillage Kandukur lvlandal Ranga Reddy District.

14. M.Mallaiah, S/o. Sayanna, Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

15. N.Sreesailam, S/o. Sayanna Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District. '16. N.Narsimha, S/o. Bhavaiah Agriculture, R/o. Nedunur Village Kandukur ttlandal Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/Appellants/Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006( CRPMP. NO: 1952 OF 2006) 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 order passed by the 1st respondent in case No.F2l6883/1996 on 0311212005 pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JETTI YASHO SURYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RANGA RAO NELLUTLA The Court made the following: ORDER s THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. S UJANA CTVIL REVISION PETITION N0.1392 c,l 2o,o6 ORDER: This Civil Revrsion Petition is hled bv the petitioners- respondents, aggrieved by the order dated 03. Lt2 2005 passed in case No.F2l6883/ 1996 by the Joint Collector I, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that the p: itioners filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer un< er Section 40(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricul ural Lands Act, 1950, seeking succession of Protected Tenancy (I" ) rights held by their fathers over lands bearing Survey Nos.4O2, 4O3, 4O4, 4OS, 469, 574, 575 and 594 of Nedunoor Village. The petitioners claimed that their fathers were the original protccl( I tenants of the said lands and, after their demise, the petitioners, were entitled to succeed to the PT rights. It is further submitt: I that, as legal heirs, they \.\'ere entitled to their respective shares n the pT rights and requested that succession be granted accordinp.y.

3. Upon receipt of the application, notices u'er I issued to the interested parties, including the legal heirs of the < riginal pTs and the purchasers of the land. The purchasers f led a counter, contending that the petitioners were neither pat[adars nor 2 sxs,., c.R-P.Xo.1392 of 2006 possessors of the land and, therefore, not entitled to succession of PT rights. Their primary contention was that Kumari Raj aiah and Muddem Ramulaiah were not protected tenants, despite their names being recorded in the PT register. It was further contended that these individuals had never cultivated the lands at any point in time, particularly prior to 1954, and had orally surrendered the lands in 1950 and the purchasers argued that the names remained in the PT register only nominally and that the petition was filed with the intent to claim the Iand illegally due to its increased value.

4. After hearing both parties, the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer concluded that the petitioners were indeed the legal heirs of the original protected tenants and observed that although the lands had been transferred to others, the PT rights remained intact and, accordingly, granted succession under Section aOQl of the Act in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by tJle said order, the purchasers hled an appeal before the Joint Collector-Il, Ranga Reddy District. They contended that the original protected tenants had surrendered their tenancy rights orally to the pattadars prior to 1954, particularly in respect of Survey Nos.574, 575, and 594, and had never been in possession of the lands and that the purchasers had acquired the Iands from the pattadars, who were in possession prior to 1954, and that subsequent revenue records :1 3 sKs,J C.R.P.lco.1392 of 2006 confirmed their continued possession. The respcr dents were also alleged not to be protected tenants of the land irl Surwey No.569, which was cultivated by one Peddati Ramaiah pr i rr to 1954, who was not made a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the purchasers argued that the petitioners had no vali I claim.

5. Considering the submissions of both :,i 1es, the Joint Collector reversed the order of the Mandal Reverr re Ofhcer. The Joint Coiiector held that there was no documer.1 rry evidence to prove the death of the original protected tenants, l rd this fact u,as not addressed in the MRO's order. Additionallv. ir was noted that the protected tenancy was not recorded in thc {hasra Pahani, which holds signihcant evidentiary value among r :venue records. On these grounds, the appeal was allowed, and t re MRO's order was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the prcse r t Crvil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. Heard Sri Jetti Yasha Surya, learned ,) )unsel for the petitioners and Sri Ranga Rao Nellutla, learned ;ounsel for the respondents

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitionersr submitted that there is sufficient documentary evidence to estat I sh that all the petitioners were recognized as protected tenants, as reflected in the 4 SKS,J c.R.P.Ito.l392 of 2q)5 order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) and that the mere absence of the names of the protected tenants in the Khasra Pahani cannot be construed as a voluntary surrender of tenancy rights. He further submitted that there is no record, either oral or written, to indicate that the protected tenants had relinquished their rights over the land in question and that in support of their claim, the petitioners had also filed additional documents, inciuding death certificates of the original protected tenants, to demonstrate that the said tenants had passed away prior to the hling of the succession petition before the MRO and requested the Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the primary ground on which the Joint Collector reversed the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer was based on the entries in the Khasra documents from the year 1954 and that these records are crucial and carry significant evidentiary value, parlicularly in determining tenancy rights. He further submitted that the names of the alleged protected tenants were not recorded in the Khasra Pahani of i954, which instead reflected the name of the original pattadar and that the petitioners' ancestors could not be considered protected tenants as of 1954, and therefore, the petitioners themselves are not entitled to claim / / SKS'J R-P,No.1392 of 2006 SLlCCESSION rights over the said lands and pral'etl the Court to dismiss the petition.

9. tn the light of the submissions made by b< I I thc learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material availabk rn record, it is evident that the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer had - 3htly granted succession under Section 4O(2) of the Act, r:;ognizing the petitioners as the legal heirs of the original protectc(l [enants. The names of the original protected tenants were duly : rcorded in the Protected Tenants register, thereby establishing th: r etltitlement. However, the Joint Collector reversed the MRO's order on two grounds: first, that no death certificate l-rad been lllt C to prove the demise of the original protected tenants; and secc:1d, that their names were nol reflected in the Khasra Pahani. Wil r regard to the first ground, the petitioners subsequently submit -, c1 valid dcath certificates, u,hich clearly established that the or I inal protected tenants had passed away prior to the hling of t re succession petition. Therefore, the order of the MRO order : les not suffer from any legal infirmity on this count. The seconci 3round is that while the Khasra Pahani carries evidentiary vtt ue, it is not conclusive in matters concerning protected tenar t y. The MRO correctly obsen ed that the names of the protect.ec tenants were recorded in the PT register, which is the authoritati" document for \ t 6 SKS,J c.R.P.l{o.1392 of 2006 determining such rights. Even the respondents admitted that the names were present in the PT register, although they contended that the tenants had orally surrendered their rights. However, there is no documentary evidence to support this claim, no where the names deleted from the register. Thus, the abscnce of names in the Khasra Pahani does not negate the protected tenancy rights of the petitioners, as such the Joint Collector erred in concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to succession mcrely because the names of the protected tenants u,ere not found in the Khasra Pahani.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2005 passed in Case No.F2/6883/ 1996 by the Joint Collector-l[, Ranga Reddy District is hereby set aside, and the proceedings dated 22.10.1996 passed in proceedings No.A/ 254 I of 1992 by the Mandal Revenue Ofllcer, Kandukur Mandal are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, II '[Q!E LOPY I/ sD/- A.V.S PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Joint Colleftor-ll Rangareddy District. 2. One CC to Sri Jetti Yasho Surya Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ranga Rao Nellutla Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 4, NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER CRP.No.1392 of 2006 '\ ',c i, ... t. r [::u ififr , -\' :-/ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETIT ION (, \ rO \