High Court · 2025

9. Akirala Viiavalaxmi, w/o late Akirala Narayana, Aged about 73 years' r/o H No. 3-57'6,' Ba zarw adi, Asifabad, District Komarambheem Asifabad-504293 10. Akirala Kranthi Kiran, s/o late Akirala Narayana' Aged about 44 years, r/o H.No.3-576, Bazarwadi, Asifabad, District Komarambheem Asifabad-504293' 1'1 Ekirala Leelavathi, w/o Late Sri Akirala Madhukar' Aged about 57 years, occ House hold, r/o. H.No.7-109, Asifabad mandal, District Komarambheem Asifabad-504293. ---7 ..,IlESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High . Court may be pleased to pass an order, or orders, direction or issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, (i) Direct the respondent No. 3 to issue ownership Certificate in favour of petitioner by Completing the proceedings initiated under A.P. (T A ) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950' vide Proceeding Rc. No. 8/20712005 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 9 acre 18 guntas situated in Sy.No.200 and another 15 acres 65 guntas in Sy.No.201 of Appepally village, mandal Asifabad, District Komarambheem Asifabad (ii) further direct the respondent no 3 that not to entertain and register any registered document in favour of third parties in respect of above said land on behalf of legal heirs of late A Bheemaiah i.e. respondent No.4 to 11 (iii) and consequently declare the action of respondent no.3 in not issuing the ownership certificate in respect of said land in favour of petitioner who is grandson of protected tenant is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14. 21 , and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and against the mandatory provisions of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order directing the respondent No.3 herein that not to entertain and register any registered document in favour of third parties in respect of agricultural land admeasuring I acre 18 guntas situated in Sy.No.200 and another 15 acres 65 guntas in Sy.No 201 of Appepally village, mandal Asifabad, District Komarambheem Asifabad on behalf of legal heirs of late A. Bheemaiah i.e. respondent No.4 to 11, pending disposal of main W. P. in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petilioner: SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4, 6, 8, I & 1'l : SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, Sr. The Court made the following: ORDER COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI M.MALLESHAM ,/' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C,V.BHASKAR REDDY IIRIT PETITION No.22216 OF 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to pass an order, or orders, direction or directiott-s, or issue a urit, more porticularly in th.e nature of \t/rit of Mandamu1 (t) direct th.e respondent No. 3 to issue ownership CerttJicate in fauour of petitioner bg completing th.e proceedings initiated under A.P. (T.4.) Tenancg and Agialfiral Lands Act, 1950 uide Proceeding Rc.No.B/ 207/ 2OO5 in respect of agianlhral land. admeasuing Ac.9.18 guntas situated in Sg.No.200 and another 4c.15-65 guntqs in Sg.No.2O1 of Appepallg Village, Asifaban Manda| Ko mar amb he em A sifab ad Distict ; (ii) further direct the respondent No.s that rat to entertain and register ang registered doalment in fauour of third parties in respect of aboue said land on beholf of legal heirs of late A. Bheemaiah i.e. respondent No.4 to 17; (tii) and consequentlA declare ttte action of respoftdent No.3 in not issuing th.e otunership cerdrt.cate in respect of said land in fauour of petitioner uho is grandson of protected tenant is illegal, arbitrary, uiolatiue of Article 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and agaist . the mandatory proui.sions of A.P. $-4.) Tenanrcg and Agicttltufal Lands Ad, 1950, and lo pass any such other crd.er/ orCers...'

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather Mr.Dandi Mallaiah, was the Protected Tenant in respect of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.9. 18 guntas in Sy.No.200 and Ac. 15-65 guntas in Sy.No.2O1 situated at Appepally Village, Asifabad Manda,l, Komarambheem Asifabad District. It is further case of the petitioner 2 t' that the said Dandi Mailaiah passed away long ago, leaving behind his only son, late Bakkaiah. The said Bakkaiah also died, leaving behind two sons, i.e., the petitioner and his brother-Dadi Parvathalu. The petitioner claims that he and his brother have been. in continuous possession of the subject lands since 1940 and they filed an application under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy' and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the Tenancy Act"). on the Iile of respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Asifabad Mandal and in pursuance of the same, the Respondent No.3 issued notice dated 15.03.2005 in File No.Bl2O7 l2OO5, but ti1l date, the enquiry has not been conciuded.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending adjudication of the enquiry, ttre unofficial respondents claiming to be legal heirs of Sri A. Bheemaiah are trying to alienate the subject properties to third parties.

4. The leained counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the successor-in-interest of the Protected Tenant and he is entitled for ownership certificate under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. 'Ihe learned counsel further submitted that protected tenancy could be terminated only in a manner known to law and in the absence of valid termination of 'protected tenancy,, the interest of such protected tenant continues to be operative and subsisting in 7/ law and could devolve on his legal heirs ald representatives who could then claim restoration of possession.

5. Per contra, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.Mallesham, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents argued that late Akirala Bheemaiah, was the pattadar of the subject lands and the respondents, being his legal heirs are in possession of the subject lands. The petitioner's application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that after 20 years of issuance of notice dated 15.03.2005 by the respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner and therefore, the same is not maintainable. It is also submitted that if the application filed by the petitioner is entertained at this belated stage, it amounts to disturbing the settled position and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. As seen from the material placed on record, it is evident that respondent No.3- issued a notice dated 15.03.2005 in File No.Bl2O7 l2OO5 pursuant to the application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act submitted by the petitioner and his brother. The present writ petition is hled by the petitioner after lapse of 20 years from the date of issuance of said notice, without explaining the inordinate delay. Further, there is no dispute that Section 38 of Tenancy Act confers pqw€J on the Protected Tenant to purchase the land-holder's I ! I ,iJ v \ 4 rnterest in the land subject to the protected tenant complying with Section 38E and conditions imposed under sub_section (7) of Section 38. The proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 3gE states that where the land, the ownership of which has been transferred to - the protected tenant under sub_section (1), is in the occupation of a person other than the protected tenant or holder of the certificate issued under sub-section (2), it sha be lawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said land to the protected tenant or holder of the certirrcate, after giving notice of eviction to the occupant thereof, in the prescribed manner.

7. Since, in this case, no ownership certilicate was rssued on the date of vesting of rights in favor of the petitioner,s predecessor_in_ interest, the protected tenancy continues despite the death of the protected tenant, and the rights in that regard devolve upon the successors. The petitioners are entitled to make an application if there was no surrender under Section 19 of the Act. If the land was sold to third parties without folrowing the procedure under Section 38-D of the Act, they may challenge the same by Iiting an appropriate application under sub-section (3) of section 3g-E of the Tenancy Act for issuance of an ownership certificate. Since the said procedure has not been followed, the present writ petition fited is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. a \ )

8. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate his grievance in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 One CC to SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR, Advocate I One CC to SRI tr/.MALLESHAIM, Advocate IOPUCI UC] TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE'HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies BSR BS trL I HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 ORDER WP.No.22216 ot 2024 c r-) Y * \)R ltrE Si.4 /4. 21 npa Zus Cri .1=t f--O DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ( h 2\ v\