The High Court · 2025

11. Smt.Kamalamma, W/o.LateGunti Deva Danam Aged 70 years, Occ. House wife Rl/o. 3-46/1 , Kothwalguda, Shamshabad, R.R. District - 501218

12.G. Soloman, S/o. Gunti Deva Danam Aged 59 years, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o.3- 46/1 , Kothwalguda, Shamshabad, R. R, District - 501218

13.Nagaram Graes, D/o. Late Gunti Deva Danam Aged 52 years, Occ. House wife Rlio. 2-29, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District - 509925

14.Gunti Raju, S/o. Late Gunti Deva Danam Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture Rlio. 3-46/1 , Kothwalguda, Shamshabad, R.R. District - 501218 l5.Yangani Bujjamma, D/o. Late Gunti Deva Danam Aged 41 years, Occ. House wife Rl/o. 2-1612,Yenkapally, MoinabadMandal, Himayatnagar, R.R. District - 500075

16.Gunti Samuel, S/o. Late Gunti Deva Danam Aged 40 Vr:ars, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o. 3-4611, Kothwalguda, Shamshabad, R.R. District - 501218. (Petitioner Nos. 1 1 to 16 are brought on record as [-Rs of the deceased Petitioner No. 1 as per C.O.dt. 14.10.2024 in lA No. 2120',13.)

17.Gunti Vilasini Joseph, W/o. Late Gunti Joseph Aged 6{) years, Occ. House wife RL/o. 1 -1 -4O1 I 388, Gandhinagar, Musheerabad, Hydt,rabad. (Petitioner Nos. 17 brought on record as LRs of the der;eased Petitioner No. 2 as per Court Order dt. 14.10.2024 in l.A.No. 312023). ....,PETITIONERS AND 1 . The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy l)istrict. 2. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 3. G. Solmon, S/o Late Balaiah, Occ Employee, Rl/o. Kor,rlhwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

4. G. Yesuratnam,, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Retd. Employe,:, Fl/o. KoMhwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

5. G. John, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

6. G. Mathaiah, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Kr;vrthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

7. G. David, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Pvt. Employee, Fl/o. K:lrrthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

8. G. Aresases, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Employee, Fl/o. Kowlhwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

9. G. Ratnamma, W/o. Late Balaiah Housewife, Rl/o. Kowtrvralguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

10.G. Andres, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

11.G. Sagar, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o. Kowthrnalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District.

12. G. Suvarna Raju, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. (RR 3 to 12 are impleaded as per Court Order dt 15.03 21'12 in W.P.M.P.No, 30684 of 2007) .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other approt,"iate writ, order or direction declaring the notice No.D/378/2007 dt.21-3-2007 uLnd 25-4-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent for conducting enquiry to decidt: the succession of ownership rights of the holder of the certificate Und(lr Section 38-E of A.P.(Telangana Area)Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1150 by reviewing the memo dt.2-5-2005 as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and :;ontrary to Law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 2006(5) ALT 754 and consequertly to set aside the same by declaring that the 2nd respondent has no power to deside the said and rssue. |.A.NO:1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO:127 8 OF 2007 ) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice D137812O07 dated 21-3-2007 and 28.4.2OO7 issue by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the w.p. |.A.NO:1 OF 2008(WVMP. NO: 2460 OF 2008 ) Between

5. o.

7. B.

9. G. Solmon, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Employee, Rl/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Yesuratnam,, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Retd. Employee, Rl/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. John, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Mathaiah, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. KoMhwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Aresases, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Employee, Ri,/o. KoMhwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Ratnamma, W/o. Late Balaiah Housewife, R/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Andres, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Sagar, Sio. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Fi/o. Kovvthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. G. Suvarna Raju, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Agriculture, Ri/o. KoMhwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. AND 1.

4. 5 6 7 Gunti Deva Danam @ Devayya, S/o.Late Balaiah, Rl/o.Kothwalaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. Gunti Joseph, S/o.Late Balaiah, Rlio.Kothawalaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. G.Samson, S/o. Late Balaiah, Rl/o.Kothwalaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. G. John Paul,S/o.G.D.Charles, Rl/o.Kothawalaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. G. David, S/o. Late Balaiah, Occ Pvt. Employee, Rlio. Kowthwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. RESPONDENTSTRESPONoENTS NOs.1,2 & 7 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL rt may be pleased to vacate the order dt. 9-5-2007 passed in WPMP No. 127(;8 of 2007 in WP No. 10072 of 2007. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 9 : SRI K.RAGHUVEER Rl:DDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.S,7,8,10, 11 & 12 : SRI D. NA(iABHUSHANAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 6 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO. too72 0F 20,07 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following praycr: "....to Issue a wit of Mandannus or any other oppropiate trrit, order or direction decLaring the notice No'D/378/2007 doted.21.3.2OO7 and 25.4.20O7 issued bA the 2"d respondent for anducting enquiry to decide the succession oJ ounership ights of the hold.er of the. certiftcote lJnder Section 38 E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancg and Agnanlturol Londs Act 195O by reuieuting the meno dated 2 5 2O05 as itlegal, arbi.trory taithout Jurisdictton ond contrary to Law Laid doun bg thb Hon'ble Court in 2006(5) ALT 754 and consequentLg to set aside the some bg declaing that the 2"d respondent has no pou)er to decide the said and issue ond pass such other order or orders."

2. Heard both sides and pemsed the record'

3. The case of the petitioners is that after the dcmise of petitioners' father on 2a.O1 .1984 the petitioner bei)rg ton and grandson have inherited the subject property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that the petitioners' father, late Sri Gunti Balaiah, was a protected tenant of agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.29 gts in Sy No 158 and Ac.4.03 gts in Sy.No.159 of Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal. F-:-{ \ \l - i 2

4. Further a certificate of ownership was i.,sued under Section 38 E of the Telangana Tenancy and Agri'::ultural Lands Act, 195O (for short 'the ActJ by the Addirjonai Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Hyderabad Wcsl Ln his favour ulde proceedings dated 15.O5.1975. That after tlrt r:emise of the petitioners' father on 2a.Ol.l9a4, the petitioners b,- ing his sons and grandson, have inherited the said property and have been in possession ancl enjoyment of the same.

5. The M.R.O. uide proceedings dated lb. I 1.2001 has certified that the petitioners had acquired righl:s over the said Iand through succession and ordered to mutate tht:ir names in the pahani for the year 2OO2-2OO3; that while_ thr: rnatter stood thus, the respondent Nos.3 to 12 have made a rof,r,.'sentation to respondent No.1 claiming that they are the legal representatives of tate Sri Gunti Balaiah, in whose favour the cr:-tifitate under Section 38-tr of the Act was issued and reqrtested to issue succession certihcate in their favour, in respect r:f the above said land.

6. It is contended that the respondent No.2 bv letter datecl

02.05.2005 uide proceedings No.5/72l2001 (Ex.P 3) informed that petitioners herein and the respondent Nos. ll t-o 12 that the Joint Cotlector, Ranga Reddy District has issut d instructions l not to pass any order granting succession certificates under Section 4O of the Act to the protected tenants unless therc is any order from the Civil Court and also informed that he does not have power to decide the actual legal representatives of the deceased since it is a matter of civil dispute.

7. However, subsequently the respondent No.2 uide impugned notices being Dl378l2OO7 dated 27.O3.2OO7 and

28.O4.2OO7 directed the petitioners and respondents to appear for fresh enquiry on 3O.03.2O07 and O5.O5.2007 respectivcly together with all documents in support of their claim, that the action of respondent No.2 in reopening a matter previously closed and attempting to adjudicate a succession dispute with a mala ftde intention, without any power or authority is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged It is pertinent to note that in the present case, respondent No.2 by issuing the impugned notices dated 2 1.03.2007 and

28.O4.2OOT cannot direct the petitioners and respondents to appear for enquiry, to adjudicate a succession dispute, when already uide proceedrngs dated 02.O5.2OO5, it was informed that instructions were issued by the Joint Collector not to pass any 4 order granting succession certificates to the protccted tenants unless there is any order from the Civil Court.

10. It is a settled law that the revenue aut.hor ities are not vested with the jurisdiction, power or authoritv r,t decide title disputes ancl other disputed questions of facts. 'l'he erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. P.tshlto,)atfia u. Jolnt Collector, R.R. Illstric! Hgderabadt has observr:,.[ that:

70. ......this E)estion of title and possession is ,:tLt relg in the noture of question of fact which cannot be der:i.ted bg an authoritg like the third respondent and untit ancl u;t.lt,ss the title of such a disputed propertA is decided one wau o. the other, necessary changes of entries in the Reuenue recorct cannot be effected bg the Reuenue OJficials under the Act. Th,:r;fore, I ftnd no illegalittt or tnegulaity in the order passed b.. the third respondenl.. Hence, it is expedient for the petitioner to approach competent ciuil Court in order to get the title disprrtc settled in his fauour and then onlg approach the outhoitibs LLnder the Act for appropiate relief.

11. Further, it is to be noted that the questio;t of succession to a protectecl tenancy in respect of the certificat,r: of bwnership issued to late Sri Gunti Balaiah under Section 38 E of the Act is a matter to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Cr>r Lrt but not a revenue authority.

12. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra pra<le.sh in Syed Abdul Majeed a. Joint Collector-Il, Ro:nga Reddg Distrlct2 '1zoo5; t eLo zoo '?izoooy s eLo las 5 while deciding a similar issue in relation to the power of revenue authorit5r to decide the question of succession when a certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of the Act was granted, has held as under: 7 1. The position in the case of protected tenancg in respect of u.thich a certificate under Section 388 of the Act i.s not obtained is no different. Section 40 of the Act onlg declares that protected tenancy is heitable and that legitimate lineal descendonts bg blood or adoption of protected tenant shall be entitled to hold tenoncy on the same terms ond conditions on tt;hich such protected tenant utas holding the land at the time of his death. Tle same does not confer arut pou-ter on anu Reuenue Authoitu much less MRO to decide di.sputed questions of succession. For instance if a question arises as to uhether a person cla ims that Le is a leqitimate lineal descendant b blood or ad MRO lcqitimacu of a child ts a mqtter for the Court to decide determinin on the euidence as u-tell os l. well recoqnized in law. Similarlu. if thare is a di^spute betueen tu)o or more persens clqtminq to be lineal descendants of the protected tenant, if their predecessor had olreodu obtained a certiftcate u4der Seglion 38Erf tlle Act and becameabsolute otune decide tle question. Similarlg, in the case of a protected tenani uho did not obtain a certificate under Section 32 of the Act, the MRO cannot decide the question, though it can be a matter of enquiry under th.e Rules, uthich essentiallg deal tuith preparation of preliminary record of tenancies oJ agriatltural lands. it b not or ttLe MRO on can it be decided b (emphasb supplied)

13. It is pertinent to note ttrat the Memo dated O2.O5.2O05 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer is sustained, as it rightly recognized that the dispute over succession was civil in nature and beyond his jurisdiction. Further, once jurisdiction is 6 declined on such reason that the issue is for :r (r( mpetent civr Court to adjudicate, the Mandal Revenue Offr,-c - uide notice dated 28.04.2007 lacks authority to reopen the .nrrtter through a fresh enquiry into the same succession dispute'.

14. Further, the argument that respondent No. 1l acted under an order from an appellate authority is v. ithout legal consequence, as an appellate authority, c:a;rnot confer jurisdiction upon a subordinate authority whir:h it otherwise lacks under thc statute. Therefore, this Court afl'irms the legal correctness and finality of the Memo dated Oj2.Cr>.2OO5, and reiterates that only the Civil Court has power to adjudicate succession disputes under the Tenancy Act.

15. It is pertinent to note that learned cor_utse1 for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners (as 1>1,\intiffs) have earlier filed a suit r-lide O.S.No.3O52 of 2OO7 r>n the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddr, District for declaration as legal heirs of late Sri Gr n--i Balaiah. Subsequently, the petitioners/ ptaintiffs hled ano(irr:r suit uide O.S.No.1623 of 2022 on the file of learned principal District Judge, L.B. Nagar, for declaration of title anc recovery of possession and declaration of sale deeds dated 04.C,).200g and 27 .06.2008 as nu1l and void, and permanen I injunction, 7 wherein the trial Court uide interim order dated 15.11.2022 rn I.A.No. 1211 of 2022 has granted status quo in respect of the subject property.

16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners is irregular and is invalid as per Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the suit hled by the respondents is a comprehensive suit. This Court does not intend to make any observation thereupon.

17. However, it is noticed that the said suit utde O.S.No.3052 of 2OO7 was filed by the petitioners on 14.11.2OOO7 much later after respondent No.2 issued a memo dated 02.05.2005 (Ex.P3) and impugned notices dated 21.O3.2OO7 and, 2a.O4.2OO7 wherein the rival claim of respondent Nos.3 to 1l as lineal descendents of the deceased Gunti Balaiah was already in their knowledge. For the said reason, although the petitioners were aware of the rival claim of respondent Nos.3 to 12, they did not choose to array them as defendants nor they sought the relief of effecting changes in the revenue records as a consequential relief. The said decree dated 21.O2.2O08 shall not be considered for the purpose of deciding on the aspect as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased Gunti Balaiah, wherein the said suit uide 8 O.S.No.3O52 of 2OO7 filed by defendanr Nos.3 ro 12 including the petitioners being comprehensive in nature.

18. The outcome in the said suit would have rr rlirect bearing the claim being made by the petitioners, sinc,_. the suit is .on pending before the trial Court in respect of the sub.ject property, the parties'right to ciaim succession is dependenl on the result of the said suit. Therefore, the action ol. resporrr Lent No.2 in issuing impugned notice dated 21.O3.2OOT li,r conducting enquiry on 05.05.2007 to decide the successir:,rr dispute is contrary to la$,.

19. In the light of the above discussion, this Cor Lrt is of the view that the impugned notices dated 21.3.20O7 ar.rrl 25.4.2OO7 issued by respondent No.2 are illegal and arbitrar-r.. Thus, the aforesaid impugned notices are liable to be quashe.<l.

20. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. Ho.,vr.ver, libert5r is granted to all the parties to apprcach the corn,retent Civil Court to estabtish their respective claims of succcsr;ion to the properties of late Sri Gunti Balaiah and directed tlre revenue authorities to act upon the mutation proceedings o.rly after a final decree being passed by the competent Civil (.)ourt. No order as to costs. i 9 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' wiin".= the Hon,bte the chief Justice APARESH KUMAR slNGH, on this iiiJrv,irl" rrrelfth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty five' //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To ,| 2 3 4 5 6 7 o dy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga The Tahsildar. Shamshabad, Ranga ReddY Distri ct Two CCs to G P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the S Hvderabad. [OUT] cji,"-ct i" dnt K.bH I DAMBARAM, Advocate [oPUC] - o;; CC io snr r.ancHUVEER REDIY, Advoce]e [oPUC] o;; Ca io snr r.rncneHUSHANAM,PAdvocate (OPUC) - - ^. o;; cc io srii e .TUnoHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate (oPUC) Two CD CoPies tate of Telangana at SA BS ,M/ t a .-.. ,. -\-. ?:r sEP 2U5 ',I !) HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 ORDER WP.No.10072 of 2007 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \ \q 4