High Court · 2025

22. Smt.Jamalpur Prameela, Rl/o. Peddaelkicherla Vi r(te, Chowdergudam Ma ndal. ...RESPONDENTS Petition underr Article 226 of the Constitution of ln('3 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ther tligh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appr, 1:, iate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the order ol tre 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Farooqnagar in Case No.G|1232012018, dt.23.09 ',\'t23 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to direct 'r{: 3rd respondent to act in accordance with law as per the directions of this - onourable Court in CRP.No.539/2010, dt l 1 t0812017. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the c 'c rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou t may be pleased to suspend the order of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar in Ca.,e No.G|1232012O18, dt.23.09 2023 pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS SEN|Olt COUNSEL . Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : ASST. GP FOR RE'rtt 11gE counser ror the Respondents No'5to23;,3I"I;?35='L'$;itl8irBHAVArHr rep., MS.VEDULA CHITRALEK! A The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE, SRI JUS'I-ICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRI'I'PE-I'I TIOt.r- No. 273 7 9 ol 2023 ORDDR: This Writ Petition is tlled seeking to quash the order, dated

21.09.201i. in Clasc No.G/12320/20 I 8, passed by respondent No'3 by dcclaring thc same as illegat and arbitrary and consequently' to dircct r.esponder-rt No.3 to act in accordance with the directions ol thrs Cotrrt in CItl'.No.5i9 o1'2010. r idc olders, dated I l'08'2017'

2. fteatd Sri Vcdula Slinivas, lc'amed senior counsel appealing tbr Srnt. Vcclr-rla Chitratekha, lcartled counsel-on-record fbr thc pctitioner, learnecl Assistanl (lovcrnment Pleader for Revcnue appearir-rg for rcspondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri M'Surender Rao' leamed senior colttlsel appearing lor Smt' E'subhavathi, learned counse l-on-record lol respondent Nos 5 to 22'

3. 'l hc briet- tacts ofthe case, AS averred by the petitioner in the rvrit aflldavit are that or-iginally, his father-Ahmed Ati Siddiqui was owner of lancl adrncasurir.rg Acs.59-30 guntas in Sy No 396 ol- Chattanpalty Villagc, Farooqnagal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that one Katika Gopoji was the protected tenant of,that land, bLrt he rv:rs i-q posscssion ol- land orlll to all cxtent ol' Acs 27' 16 guntas; l -.\"1' J ll l'. \o.2 /'-179 (,f 202.1 \ that since lltc saicl llrotectc(l tcnent su[r_leasccl rr )i] .l ol land to orrc K.Sayanna. the or.iginal orr lrcr. tcr.r.ninated thc tc r rcv iu r.espcct of tlte enti'e land b1, ,otrce datcd 07.10.196g a.cl I r,: I an application bclore the l'ahsildar tbr rcco'er' oI possessio, Lr rr.-.r Section 32(2) o1'thc Anrlh'a l)r'adesh lTcra.uana Area) T.ranc ,d Agric,ltural Act, 1950 (for brevit1,, hereinallcr rclerred to a. .rhe Act, 1950); that subsequently. 51 .No.3t)6 rl.rrs sub-divided i ri Sy.Nos.652 to 657 and thc' protccted icnant \\as irr possc..i rn ol land in Sy.Nos.652. (r5(r and (ri7 anci lic *,as not in Pos,r.:.sion of la,d i. Sv.Nos.65 l. ri5(r and 6-55; that an cirquirv u as r r clucted by then 'l alrsildar, u ho, b)' oldcr- clatecl 19.02.1974 tcruri r ccl the te,ancy and Cirected cviction of protectccl tcnant-Gopoii rr . i,cll as his sub_ tenant; that conscqucntlr'. tlre nan.rc ol Gopoj i u.a. . tunded off and thus, the plotectcrl tenaltc\ stoori tcr-ntinatecl. I hc .t id proceedings wcre challengecl by thc protectcd tenant.Gopoj i bi. .r .e the Revenue Divisional Ofllccr. Mahabubnagrr in File No.l]' l/t97ul. bur rhe salne was disnrisscd a,d hc has lirrthcr challergc( lie said orcler in CRP.No. 1 136 ol' I975 before thc c.rstrvhile uigh r,r-rrt of Andhra [)radesh and tlre said Revision petition u.as al. , dismissed on 07 04.1976. -/ J LNA, J tfP.No.27379 of )023

3.1. [t is further averred that after the death of Gopoji, his grandsons b1, narne Rarnchanderji. Kondaji, Nagoj i and Baloji made an application Lo I'ahsildal on 03.02. [990, under Section 32(I) ol the Act. I950, lbr rcstolation of possession in respect of land in sy.No.396(old), however, the same was closed on

07.11.1998 on the ground tliat the sole respondent therein-Alured Ali Siddiqui,

1.c., firther ol' petitioner, expired and hence, the petition is abated. 'l'hat later, rvhen legal representatives of Gopoji filed an ayrplication in Octobcr. 1006 bctbrc the M.R.O. for supply of certiflcd copr ol' orcler clated 07.1 L 1998, a Memo dated

18.10.2006 was issued intblrning them that the said file is not traceable; that basing on the saicl memo, an appeal was filed by the LRs of thc ori_c,inal protectcd tcnant-Gopoji before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in the ycar 2007 stating that they came to kr-rou, abor"rt the abatcmL.nt orcler irr the ycat'2005 only, and Joint Collectol allorvec] thc sarnc on 16 06.1007 directing Tahsildar to conduct de novo enquiry

3.2. -l'he order passcd by Joint (-'ollector was challenged in CRP.No.4 188 ol' 2007 and the sarne \\'as allowed on 01.12.2008 remanding the nlatter to the Joint Collectol with a direction to '1 .l L,\'.,1' J 'l P. \1t. ) 7-179 of )02J decide the ntattcl bv gi., ine oltllortLrnitr. to th, rafiies; tllat on retnand, t.he .loint Collcctor. passr,.tl or.dcr. rL r :d 17.01.2010, remanding the nrafl.cr to l-ahsildar lirr de novo cr 1L ir.v and the said ordcr was assailcd by the pctitioncr in CRI).No.5.r rf 20 l0 and the sarre was clisn-rissed on r l .08.101 7 * ith a. ob. ,'rr ati., t.hat the Joint Collector o,ght noL to ha'e clealt r.vith thc r - rits of. the case while remandirrs the ntattcr lbr. de nor o enc[rir.r r, r the fahsildar and the Tahsildar. *,as directed t. dcciclc thr. c..., rtiesh without being influenccd bv any ol' the obscn.atior.rs rn. ,l : by the Joint Collector rn thc order. tlatcd 27.0I .2010; thl the pctitioner appeared befbre the Tahsildar.. ljar.ooqnagar.. ar.i reqr-rcsted lor supply of <:ertillcd copies ol' ccrtain docunrenls , i,lc apltlication dated 13.02.10191 there \\.erc lto subscqucnt (.irr.iu_qs due to Covid-19 duling the years 2020-ll: tliat the l r lr ;ildar. clid not furnish doculncnts sought lbr br LIrc petitioncr. , .r;pite rcpeated requests.

3.3. In tltc ntc.aurvhilc. the Lrnolllcial rcspo. .l,.nts Iilcd an application r.rurler Section 40 ol thc Act, 1950, to l,::lare thern as successors of'originaI protcctcd tenant_Gopo.ii: th r .he petitioner filed counter o;-rposing thc suid applicaticln l(l ground that ) I,NA' J tl' P. \' o. 2 7.1 7 9 of 2 023 concernecj have to approach civil Court fbr succession; that the Tahsildal issued notice ol-hearing clated 01 .07.2023 and proceeded with the rnatter lor linal hcarirts on 05.08.2023 and that, without considering thc reqLtcst ol'thc pctitioner tbr supply of documents and without hearing the petitior.rer', the -l'alisildar passed the impugncd ordel declarit-tg thc unol'licial respondents as successors of originat protected tenant-Gopoji in lespect of land admeasuring Acs.33. l6 gr.rntas ln S1-.No.396/ I (old) corlesponding to new Sy.Nos.653. 65-1 ancl 655 urrdcr Scction .10 r.rl- the Act, 1950 Aggrieved b1'the sarrc, thc ltrcsctrt Writ Petition is filed.

4. A countcr-amdavit is tllcd on behall of the unofhcial respondents i.e., responcletrt Nos.5 to 22, inter a/ia denying the averments rnade in the $ rit allldavit and it is specifically contended that as per the tecords, Gopoji was protected tenant of the total cxtent of Acs.60.l3 gurttas of land, which comprises Acs.8.l3 guntas in 51'.No.652. Acs.l0.l8 guntas in Sy.No.657, Acs.8.08 gLrntas in Si'.No.656. Acs. I3.,i6 guntas in Sy.No.655 and Acs.7.l6 guntas in Sy.No.653 artcl ,\cs.12.29 guntas in Sy.No.654; that tenancy was terminated only to an extent ol Acs.27.l7 gutnas in Sy.Nos.652, 656 ancl 657 and t.'nancy iu respect ol balance I 6 l' \"'1' J lt P. \o.27.t79 of 202-] extent of land admeasur.ing Acs.34.0l in Sv.Nor. rij.654 and 655 was uevef te'rninated. brrt. the Ianrlholder in , . rnir arrce o1- the revenue authorities has got thc narle ol th,. 1,r'otected tenant rounded o1f irt rcspect of' cntire cxLcrrt of Acs. (r l3 guntas. It is furlher stated that durinq the pendcncv ol lr.ocecdings lor restoration ol' possession o1- [ancl. thc protc.c..r tcnant-Gopoji expired lerl'ing bchind thc r-r,o[llcial rcspondcr]r rr r his Iegal heir.s ard theretltre, the_v Iiled a. appiication u,dcr. Se c ,: r 40 ol-thc Act. 1950 filed sceking succession ot' tenarrcv righL. ol tlte original protected tenant. It is lulther stated thal the pctiti , t.-,r llled counter ,-rerely denving the a'errnents in thc applicati.r l.cstiorri,g the authority o1- the l-ahsildar. and no cvidencL .ias placed substantiate his objectiors. therefb.c. thc -l'alrsirtr. r'iqhrl' sranted succession in f'avour o1- the olllcial lespondcnts II ( r'lns of Scction 40(2) ofthe Ac1, 1950.

4. t. It is lirrlher stated that as pcr Scction 9() ,r' the Act, 1950, therc is specific bar on thc .jLu.isdrction ol tlic cir i ,. ourl insofar as the issues r.vhich ale rcquircd to bc dculL u,ith bv the lahsildar,&IRO and the MItOl l ahsilrlar has abs<, r r. autlr.ritv to decidc on rtucccssior.r undcr. Serctiorr .10 ol thc ( It is lirrther' 1 LNA, J W P.r,o.2 7379 of 2023 stated that during enquir). dcspite the 'l-ahsildar giving plenty of opportunities to the petitioncr sincc 20 19, he delayed the enquiry on one pretcxt or the other and as such, the rnatter was finally decided by the 'fahsildar on 23.09.2021 ridc the impugned order and hence, prayed to dismiss thc Iler ision ['etition

5. Learned seniol counsel appearing lbr petitioner submitted that respondcnt No.3 has passcd the'irnpuunccl order without giving opportunity ol' hear-ir-rg to thc petition!'r'. in clear violation of principles of naturaI justicc. lle fulthcr sLrbmitted that it appears thal respondent No.3 r.vas inllucnccd br the obscrvations made by the Joint Collector in the oltler datc.d 27.01.20 l0 and further, he failed to properly appreciate the eallier proceedings and thus, came to an erroneoLrs conclusion thal tcnanc) \\'as terminated only to an extent of Acs.27.l7 guntas, rvhich is colttrary to the records. He further submitted that lespondent No.i cannot enteftain the application fbr successiorr under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 and this Court in various judgnrcnts has held that such power lies in civil Court and not with the'l'ahsildar'. He turther submitted that the procqdings commenced r.rnder Scction .12( l) of the Act were remanded b), thc Joint Cctllecter to 'l ehsilclar. Itorveyer. the same '1 8 I_ \.4, J tl l'. \/t.)7379 oJ 202-t \\'ere con\ erted into the procceclilrgs uncler Sect ,r 40 ol thc Act, 1950, rvhiclt is illegal and ilnltcnnissiblc ancl I ,n -.c. tltr, satxe is Iiable to ['rc sct aside. l{c lLrrrher sLrbrnittccl tha r,rorrgh thc .,\ct. 1950 provicles 1br an appcal ur.rcier Scction 90 r,. rcof before the Joint collcctor, since thc same is not an clficr , r,r,rs altemative remedy and lufther. sincc there is violation of pr r, iplcs ol natr-u.al .iustice and there is imntediatc thrcat of disl: ,,; rcssin, ol [he petitioner, .hc pctitioner.apllr.oached this Court O. ing the present Writ Petition and thc sante is nraintainablc.

6. In sr-rpport of his subniission that MRO I r Irsilclar is not ernpowered to grant succession under.Scction 40 thc Act, 1950, leamed corrnsel for petitioner placed rcliance <. rlrc lollorving judgments:- (i) B.Mdla Redd.v ond others Vs. Stote of ',t- ,laitgnnt antl oth crst . (ii) Order ilated 04.07.202-) passed h.r this ,t' ourr in ll/rit Pe titiott No.3002 rf'2022. (iii) Madilogunta Muthommo tntl others I t. The Joint Colle clor, Hyderthotl ond olhcrs), ' 2021(5) ALD 595 {rs) 'MANU/AP/1120/2016 !

7. With regard to rnaintainability o1' rhe Writ petition, learne<j 9 LAA, J WP.No.27379 0f 202.1 counsel lor petitioner placed reliance on rhe fbllowing judgment of the Ilon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) Godrej Strt Lec Ltl Vs. E.rcise untl 'l-u.rulion OlJicer-cum_ Assessing Authttritt;

8. In the aforesaid judgrnent, the Ilon'ble Supreme Court held that Writ Petition cannor be clismissed nrechanically on the ground that alternative remedy ar.,ailable Lrnder. rclcvant statutes has not been availed by the parties.

9. Per contra, learned serlior couusr.l appcar.ing fbr unofflcial respondents subr-r-ritted that tcnancy ol- original pt.otected tenant_ Gopoji was terminated onlv to an exrenr of Acs.27.l7 vide proceedings dated 19.02. I 97,1, hon,er er., in tlrc rcvenue records, his name was rounded of in rcspect of thc entirc cxtent, which is illegal, improper and contr.ar-y to proceedings dated 19.02.974. He further submitted that MltO/l-ahsildar is ernpowered to enter.tain and decide an application llled under Secrion 40 of the Act, 1950 for succession a,d in lact, there is spccific bar. as to the jurisdiction of civil Courl under. Scction 99 ol' thc Act, 1950. He further submitted that o.[y rvhe.c thc'e is seriors disputc as to the craim or- 3 ArR 2023 sc 781 '- \ ---'1 10 t,\^. J tl'P. \o. ) 7.)79 of 202-1 ..i succcssiorr or there are an\ dispLrtcs/diffcr.cncc I l1,lol1g the legal Itcirs ol'prctccted tcnant. thc nlattcr can bc rc{cr I ro cir il ('ourt. siucc it rcquires detailcd cxan.tiualiotl I0. Lcarncd scnioL counsr'l lirrtlier, contcudt:d ri t in thc prcsellt case, therc alc neither.disputes arnong the lcgal l: II S o l' protectcd tenant witll rega|d to succcssiou nor.therc is disp. L: as to thc clain-r ol srrccession, tlrcrclbrc. MIi.O/ l-ahsildar ttas ightlr granted successior.t in favc.ur ol' the unofficial r.csp. rr lents and thc pctitioner has failed kr point ouL any illcgality ol rr :gularity in the itnpugncd,tlder Insc-rlhr as thc contention ol' the ptctitit, .r r. thiLt ther.c is r iolation o I principlcs ol' nirtufal iusticc, lcar.nccl :. r ior. counscl lbr Lhe r-rnol'1-rc,ial responclents subrnitted that wltcr _ le ntaU.er was rcrnanded bv the .loirrt Collcctor to thc i'ahsildar. n the year 20 lg lbl conducr ing de novo enquiry. sel'eral opporlu iL es \\ erc qt\ cn to the petitioLtel to participatc altd cr..,lrtcst thr, l.tat1cl.. but he draggcd the mal-tel' ou otlc prctext or the oLhcr .rr cl furtlrcr.. the petitioncr f iled an application 1'or supply ol' cc' L lcd copics ol' e ct llilt drrcrt'lents, rr lriclr. 1 lact, alc in his cr.,rdr, itscll. IIe - Ln.,t,.t tt'P. \o. ) 7 -179 of )0 )-l specifically t'elcrred to the obscrvations Iladc Lry thc 'lahsildar in the irrpugned clrder, which are extracted hercutrder:- "From ()7 0.1.20t9 onv,erds. \'hene\)er thL't'o.se iv tokcn up Jew hearings the rtt.tpondent lu:reirt st't'king adjournments by Jiling Memos enclosing Copv of ctpplicarion dated 1 4.0 3. 20 1 9 This sort of approach on the Port o.[ resytndenls in lhe matter speoks volumes about llrcir dcluying tctt li<'.s toul non co-operalion Jor the dislttt.sol ttf long lrcntling wlrcn ulntost all the papcrs whic'h urc relcvanl r<'lalecl lrt tlrc present cose are very ntuclt uvoiloble wtllt lltettl vlti(11 they havc Jiled in lhe High ()ourt along witlt tltt'ir Revision Petitiotl in CRP.No.5-19 ttf )010. '

12. Irr support of his aforesaid submissions, learrted serlior courlsel lbr the unofficial respondcnts l.ras relicd upon thc tbllorvirrg j udgnrents:- (i) I'hr Invent Etluculional Society Vs. UCO Bank atul olherst, (ii) Order dated 08.06.2023 passed hy this ('ourt in *VP.No.245I4 of 2022. t3 hr view of the aloresaid pleadings of both the parlics and the subnrissions advanced by learrred senior coutlsel appearing fbr both the parties, tlre issues that arise for detennitratiotr arc:- n 202,1 INSC 297 '1 )

1.,\'A' J I P.,\0.2 7-l79 o/ )0r-l ( I ) ll'ltether lhc lentncy ol'the protected t, nunt-Goptli n,us Ir:rnrinuted in respect of the cnlire t t'tenl o/ ltnd in S:.y.No.396 (oltl) or onlJ' itt respect ol Ar ,.17.17 guntus? (2) lVltclhcr thc MRO/TIhsildar is emp,r"ered lo issue sttt'tessiott uruler Section 40 of the Ac't, l't50? (-l) ll/ltalher lhe impugned order is in violttit'tt of'principles o.f rtulurul j ustice? lssuc No.I .-

14. A close scrutiny of the material avai .rl,lc on record, plrticLrlarll thc order dated 19.02.1974 passed by rle lahsilclar, ar thc instanc,-' of the lantlholder, discloses that the r )-'ning scntcnce tht'rcin rcatls us herctrnder:- "'l lt,' ltttt.; of tlp cos( ure thal one Sri ., ',tted ,4li ,9i&ttrlui pllttodar o./ Sy No.396 cild corre.sJ.'u,tling to .\\'.,\iri 6-i-i. h56 and 657 known os (jundLt , '..lku ti. Murt iL ltL,tttt Vtttku Cltelka, admeasuring tr.s.27.l7 {lt1|u.\ .\iluo/('l at (.'llatldnpally Village, ,ttttl an d | )! t ! i ( t t t io tl bc./b r e t he th h.s i 1dar........ "

15. Tlic uhove narriltion of'lacts ol'the case hr tltc Tahsildar is ol.rr iously brrsecl on the application, admittecll, . liled by thc lantlholcler rrntltr Section 3l(2) ot'the Act, 1950 lltc noticc qot issrrctl by tlrc landholcler under Scction l9(d) ot' t Ac:(. l9-50, to 1- '\ "1"/ ll' I'. :\0. 2 73 79 of 202J the protected tenant-Gopoii does not specillcally mention thc sur'','ev numbers and the extent of land in the survev rlurrbers- [n such an evenL, the facts of thc case, would be namated b_y thc l-ahsildar onl1, based on the application filed by the landholder. w'hich cannot be disputed or controverted

16. 'l'his Courr cannot lose sight of the fact that in the present \\/rit Pctition. the petitioner on one hand averred that land adnrcasuring Acs.59.33 guntas belongcd to his t'athcr and that onc Copo.ii rvas the protected tenant ol' tliat land and on lhe other hand, hc averred that the said protected tenant-Gopoji was in possession of only an extent of Acs.27. 16 guntas ll . A combined reading of the afbresaid flact, as averred by' the petitioncr in the writ alfidavit, and the order dated 19.02.1974 ol' the l'ahsildar. wherein as against the 'sub.ject' it is mentioned as Tenarrcl.-under Section 32(2) ol Tenancy Act - Sy.Nos.652. 656 and 657 situated at Chattanpally Village -S l.radnaga r . talucy, it is discerniblc that in Iact, the application liled by the landholder at thc t-rrst instance betbre the Tahsildar was only tbl tennination o1' tenancy in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 and the samc \\'as accord inglv alloq,ed .l I l.l

1..\.'1. J tt'P.\o.J7379 o./ 2023

18. Frrrtlrcr. pcrusal ol' irnpr.rgned order i,:loses tltat tlte ['ahsildar lrirs obscrved thcrcin that in thc linal rccord of Aqlicultural Icnarrcies Part-1. r idc notificatior.r .lrrrcd 17.08.1950 puhrlished In I Irderabad gazettc dated 28.08.1 :, ). the nanrc of Gopoj i is lccolcle<l as protcctcd tenant in rcsl ,.r )t of extent of Acs.-59-33 utrntes in 51,.No.39(r. It is further e, r: ent that as per Ll'osool 61117rri. ltrepared in the year 1956. : tter rc-sur.vcy, S-v-.No.39(r (old)corrclates to ltc\\ Sr,.Nos.652 to,.', z

19. 'l'hcr'.'lirrc. liorn thc abor c docurncr.rts. evident lhat (iopoj i \\ lls l)rotccted tcnant lbr [[re entirc e , r,.nt of land in Sr,. No.396

20. I:urthrr. r1o nraterial is placed on record b rhe petitioner to shou' that thc tcnancl, ot'Gopoj i rvas terminated i r:spect of entir.c cxtent of Sr.\o.J()6 (old). 'fhc observations ,.':orded by thc Iahsildar irt tltc irrrpuened ordcr appear to be on I ('rough scrr-rtin1, ol'the rcrenrrc rccords. '[ herclbrc. in view of the 1i ,,going r.easons, it car-r be saf clr obscrved that the tenancy of Copc \as tefllt inated on ly ln respccl ol' land in S_"-.Nos.652, 656 anc ,.57 and not in lcspcct o1' Sr.\os.(r51,

65.1 anci 655. This is.L.,. is ans*cred acco rd in s lr t5 LNA, J W'P.n'o.27J79 of 2023 Issue No.2:-

21. 1'o ad.iuclicate this issue, it is appositc to extract Section 40 ol'the Act. 1950. rvhich reads as hereunder:- ''r lt ..111 rigltts of'o protec'ted tenant shall be heritable. /2t ll'a ltrotected tenrutt die.s, his lteir ot lteirs sholl be entitlr(l to ltold tlrc tettuttct, r-tn tlrc sune tertn.\ und t'ortditiorts on y,ltich such protected tenent wds holding the lctnd ot tlle time oJ his death and such heirs may, rtottritlt.stuttding ar'tlting cotltoined in this Act, sub- divilc uttcr se trtutrlirtg to thetr -:ltares lhe lund contprised itt tlrc tenonc), to which tlrc.y have succeetled. (3) I1 d protected tenunl dies without leaving any heirs, ull ltis rigltr.s shall he cxtingtrished." 11 A reading ol- [he above provision indicates that on death ol protected tenant, his legal heir(s) are entitled to hold tenancy and thc heirs incluclc legal descerrdanrs by, bloocl or adoption, and in the abscncc ol anv such descendants, his widow so long as she does not l'cmarrv

23. In the instant case, thc r-rnolficial respondents are clairning to bc lt'gal heirs ol'the deceased protected tenanr-Gopoji and they llled an application lol issuance ofsuccession and the Tahsildar by exercising the por.r,ers r"rnder Section 40 ol' the Act, 1950, granted succcssion, as thcrc arc no ri'",a1 claims ar-rd lurtl-rer, the pctitioner l6 LNA, .t rl l'.,\o.27-t79 of 202-l also did nol place lrrry, nraterial disproving rrr claim of the unofficial rcspondeu ts

24. Lealrrcrl scnior cotrnscl altpcar.ing for tl .r llctitioner has specificalli, r'aiscd ob.je ction as to the pou,er rirrthority of the Tahsildar to grant srrcccssion in lavour c thc unolficial respondenls. in(l suhntittc(l that r.he Ltnol'llcial rcs ,rltdents ought to have approirclted thr-' cir il ('()ut1 to clcclar.e thent ..r lcqal heirs and thereafler, Irarc to apploach rhc -fahsildar lor grr rrirrg succession. However, in tlre instanl cil\e. no sr-rclt proccdure r,, ts adopted and the Tahsidlrrr * ithout tltcil l'rcin., anr dcclarati, r: ll'or.n the civil couft has srante.l succcssior-r irr lhvour o thc unofficial respondents- rihich is irnproper an<1 rvithout ar . au[hority and hence, the rnrpugnccl olr]cr is liable to bc sct aside

25. h't B.Mnllo Redd.t"s case (cited sLrpra), thc II. rr'ble Supreme Court held that Sectiorr -10 ol' the .,\ct. l9-50. dor'. rot confer anv power on iItY l eVenue ilutllorit) nruch lcss MI{O t, tlccide disputed questions ol' successiolt. It is lirrtltcr hcld that \,. tcre there are serious disprrtcs anr()n!l tlrc lt'gal hcils of protccte( (,nant and there is clairn of any tltird patt) . tllr' I ehsildar carrnot cle ,'r rninc the same and it has to bc dccirlcrl lrr a cir il ('oult t1 L N,1, J ll/P.No.27379 o/ 2023

26. In thc instalrt case, there are no sLlch disputes among the Iegal hcils ol'deccascd protcctcd tcnant-Copoji or there arc any third partr clainrs, thelelirrc, the albresaid judgment is squarely applicablc to thc l)rescnt clsc and this Courr, accordingly, holds that in thc lhcts and circurnstances of the present case, the Tahsildar has rightly excrcisecl the power conlerred on him and issued succcssion in f'avoul ol'thc irnoft'icial respondents. The issue is ansrveled accordingll lssuc No.-l :-

27. It is the- casc ttl' tltc pctirioncr that hc was not given opportunit),to parlicipate in the enquiry and thus, the principles of natural jLlstice are violated. and hence, he approached this Court by way of liling the \\'r'it Pctirion though appeal is provided under the Act, 1950 against thc in.rpr-rgned order.

28. l-carncd scniot counsel lbr the petitioner submitted that the petitioncr has submittccl an application to provide cerlified copies of certain docuurcnts in the ycar 2019 and the same were not provided ancl as such, thc petitioncr could not participate in the enquiry proceedin,,s. -l'hc lahsilclar instead of providing the cerlificd copics of tlrc clocr.rrlcnts sought lbr by the petitioner and l8 I,NA, J t l'l'. ,\'o. 2 7-1 7 9 o[ 202-] af fording opporlurrit-r to rlte pe r't oncr to l rrlorth his case, proceedec s ith tlic casc and passccl thc irrpLrgne, , rdcr

29. Perusal of recold gocs r() shou that thc -l-a r. ldar sltccilically obscrved that sincc 07.0-l.10 I 9. ri hcrrcvg tlrc . .r: e rr,as takcn up lor l-rearing, the ltctitioncr \\'as seclt ing ad.ior ment by filing lnemos by duly enclosir.rg a copr ol'applicatro rled seeking to supply certair-r docun'rurts. Ir is lirrthcl obse cl Lhat all the documents sought lor lrr tlrc i-rctitioncl ar-e in I ..: ar ailable rvith him itself and in lact. lrc has lllccl the said docr :':nts belorc this Court in CRP.No.539 o1' l0I (). rhcrclblc. tlrc p. r i ioncr i.vas only trying to protract the ntattcr

30. It is, also relevant [() n()tc that this Cor.rrr de ordcl dated I I .0t1.201 'i in CRI'.No.5.1() ol l0 I () has rcn)zur( .: I tlrc rna er to MRO with a direction to clisl'rose ol' thc appl,,: tion ltre l-erably rvithin a peliod of thrcc rr.rc'rntlts li'ont the datc o['tL ,.' said order 3 I . In the light o1' thc sprr'cilrc obscrvations o r te 'l'ahsildar in the impugned order that lhc clocuntents souglrt lir the petitioner are very r-uuch availablc s'ith hinr and fact, th, : ame ivere filed by hirn in CRP.No.-j-3t) ol' l() 10. hou,cr cr. tl) r periLioner \vas seckir-rg acljournrlcnts ()n thc l)rcLe\t ol' n()lt-su-1,11, ol thc said ,7 l9 LNA, J l/P. No.27-179 of 2023 documents.'[-his CoLrrt (lods not lltd anr merit in the contention put lodh by the learncd scnior counsel 1br petitioner that principles ol natural justicc rrere violatcd b1 not giving opportunity ol hearing to the pctitionel as thc said contcntion is contrary to record and thereforc, this \\rlit Petition tilcd against the impugned order passed by the 'l'ahsilclar, bvpassing the rcr.r.redy of appeal before the Joint Collector', is not nruirrtlinable. 'l'hc petitioner ought to have filed an appeal r"rndc'r. Scction 90 o1'the Act, 1950 against the impugned or-dcr

12. It is |clcr ant to n()te that the I lon'ble Supreme Court in Pltr Invent Edttcutiontl Societ.l"s clse (citcd supra) has carved out ceftain exceptior.rs ,ur,lrcn a Wlit Petition under Article 226 of Constitution cotrld bc cntcr'ruirred in spite of availability of an alternative rcrnedl', which includes that when an order has been passed in tolal violation ol'plinciples of natural justice

33. In the instant ctlsc. as obscrvccl sLrpra, this Court holds that there is no violation of principlcs of natulal justice, as pleaded by the petitioner, thcrelbre, this Wlit Petition does not fall under the exceptiorls carvccl out b1, thc tlon'ble Supreme Cou( in the l(l L}iI, J tl l'. \tt.27379 oJ 202-l .- \"-'1 't\ alorcsaid .ir:dgrncnt, and as sLrch. cunn()t l)c . rt,,rlaincd bv this Court.

34. Funher, thc .judgrncnt rclicd uporr b_r lc rre d colrnsel lor petitioncr in Godrej Soru l-cc L1rl's casc (cit :l sultr.a) has no application to the present casc, as the pctitioner. r lailcd to makc out any exceptional circur-nstances to ll lc thc r\ r.it tretition lor bypassing 1he remedy' ol filing aplteal unclcr Sccti ,r- ()0 ol'the Act

35. Accordingly, tlris issuc is ansucrecl agirinsr t.r pr:titionel.. Conclusion:-

36. In the result, this Wr.it I)ctition is clisrrriss. r Horvevcr. this order rvill not prcclude tlic pctitioner li.onr ai r ing alternative remedy available under lar.',,, ilhc is so aclr.isecl.

37. Miscellaneous pctiticns pencling. it e shall stand disrnissed. Interim order clatcd 16.l0.l()l.l sr.anl ,(t br rhis Court stands vacatcd. No costs- ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI //TRUE COPY// To, (FOR HtS LORDSHTPS KtND PERUSAL) . '\iAT;NYANA SD . t'. PONNA KBI${rrrA- - as ::i I :iTANTREGTSTRAR I\ \ \ sEcroN oFFrcER ALISHETTY '1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretzr : t Buildings,state of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Collector, R.R. District at Kongarakalan. 3. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar [\/andal, R.R.District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar Revenue Cr vijion, R.R.District. 5. One CC to MS.VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate. [Or .- C] -L-_ - - crr rtlt : -,-e; :r {!-*r..I4lEffEIE_-

6. One CC to SMT.E SUBHAVATHI' Advocate tOPUCl T.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCou(forthestateofTelangana. New Delhi

3. ilitlill;.cretarv, union of lndia' Ministrv of Law' Justice and Companv Affairs' 10. The Secretary, AdVocates, Association Library, High CoUrt BUildings, Hyderabad. 11.Two CD CoPies. (A- BSK BS 7 I HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 ,,:. -..-: 1i-' 10 Ir rilfr a\ ORDER WP.No.27379 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS [+ 1 [$ i;