The High Court · 2025

1. THE JOINT COLLECTOR-Il, Ranga Reddy District At Lakdikapul, Hyderabad 2. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal Rangareddy District. 3. P.Narsamma (Died as per LRs), - 4. P.Shankaraiah (Died as per LRs), - 5. P.Bharathamma, Wo Late P.Anajaiah 6. P.Srinivas, S/o Late P.Anjaiah

7. P.Padma Rao, R/o Late p.Ramaiah 8. P. Krishna, S/o Late p.Ramaiah 9. Kalamma, Wo B.Janga Rao 10. Padammama 1 'l. Sakkemma, Wo Shankaraiah 12. P. Narsimha, S/o Shankaraiah '13 P Jyoti, D/o Shankaraiah @ Bhashamma, Wo Lingaiah No.3 to 13 are R/o Chowederguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.District ... Respondents/Respondents l.A. NO: 1 oF 2016(c RPMP. NO: 4590 oF 20 161 petition under Section-15.j..CpC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in suoport or tne peirto'n, irr. iirgn court may be preased to stay the order of the joini colector. inE.J'rrio 'i)i.,.raa,zotodated rn respect of tand in otrt ggrygy N.. i,ii'ii.z.q..is 26_03_2016 76 admeasuring acres 3illft :ii; ;. :ffi H1 y;.ru :n: tli;f J,i.l;.,. M; ;; , : il;;,*1"J0, Counset for the petitioners : Sri Suresh Sagar counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to g and 11 to 13 : Sri A. Keshava Reddy The Court made the fo owing: "na THE HONOIIRABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3576 OF 2016 ORDER: This revision petition is ftled by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2016 passed in Case No.F2/ 1768/2OlO by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioners herein are the appellalts in the appeal filed before the Joint Collector. The grandfather of petitioners, Malchalam Ramaiah is the original Protected Tenant (Pfl of the lands in old Sy.Nos.7O, 71, 72, 74, 75 and 76 admeasuring Ac.22.3O guntas situated at Narkhoda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The land, originally owned by Mir Abdul Ali,. was jointly held by Malchalam. Ramaiah and Poggaku Ramaiah as Protected Tenants. Tire grandfather of the original Protected Tenant died in 1969, leaving behind the petitioners' father as the only legal heir. The petitioners' father passed away in 1988 making the petitioners the legal heirs. As the Iineal descendant, petitioners are entitled to succession under Section 40 of the 2 A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy ald Agricultural Lands Act' 1950 (for short the 'Act, 195O')'

3. The petitioners claim is supported by the PT certihcate' which shows that petitioners were in possession of the land and cultivated it personally during the lifetime of original PT' The petitioners frled an application under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 on 3'11.2001, and the Tahsildar passed a succession order for half of the share in favour of l"t appellant therein, vide proceedings dated lt '12'2001 ' However' the Tahsildar later revised the said order on 29 'O5 '2OO4 ' and deleted petitioners' names from the succession proceedings' This action is illegal, as the Tahsildar has no power to revise his own order. Furthermore, another proceeding under Section 32 of the Act, 1950, dated 14'06'2005' was passed in favor of respondents 2 to 7 therein' which is also liable to be set aside

4. The respondents 4 to 7 therein denied the allegations made by the appellants, stating that they are false' baseless' andincorrect.Therespondentsclaimthattheappellants, grandfather, Ma-lcha-lam Ramaiah, was not the protected tenant of the land in question, and that the appellants have 3 no right to claim succession. The respondents assert that their father, Pogaku Ramaiah, and their maternal grandfather, Malchalam Ramaiah alias Ramaswamy, were the joint protected tenants of the land. They claim that Malchalam Ramaiah alias Rarnaswamy had no children of his own and had adopted the deceased respondent No.2 who is the daughter of elder brother of Malchalam Ramaiah. The respondents state that they had filed a petition under Section 4O of the Act, 195O, for succession in respect of the protec(ed tenancy land. During the enquiry, several other persons claimed rights over the land, ald the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer conducted a local enquiry to determine the real persons who cultivated the land.

5. The local enqulry revealed that pogaku Ramaiah and Malchalam Ramaiah alias Ramaswarny were the protected tenants who cultivated the lald. The enquiry also revealed that the appellants' claim was false, and that the appellant,s grandfather was not related to the protected tenancy land. The respondent-s claim that they were granted fair succession by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and that they were restored to physical possession of the land under Section 32(21 of the Act, 4 't l

1950. The respondents further assert that the appellants appeal is frivolous and frled with false allegations in collusion with politicians and land grabbers to grab. the land. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed due to the delay of over a decade in filing the appeal.

6. After considering the submissions of both parties, the Joint Collector held that the Tahsildar granted succession to both the appellant and respondents on 11.12.200 I under Section 40 of the Act, 195O and consequently revised his gwn order and issued another proceedings granting succession to the unofficial respondents. He further observed that the Tahsildar is not authorized to revise his own proceedings as such, the succession granted on 29.O5.2OO4 and possession granted on 14.06.2005 under Section 32 (2) of the Act, 1950 were set aside and directed the parties to approach the civil Court on the issue of succession ald then to approach Tahsildar.

7. Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, Iearned counsel for the peftioners and Sri A.Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 1l to 13. 5

8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the, Joint Collector while setting aside the order of Tahsildar, wrongly directed the parties to -d.pproach the civil Court which is contrar5r to the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 1950, which contemplates to grant succession to the LRs of the protected tenant which has been confirmed by the Tahsildar on ll.l2.2OO1 in File No.B4lB/58al2O01. Further, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to revise his own order which was rightly appreciated by the Joint Collector.

9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.s to 8 arld 1l to 13 filed counter stating that a-llegations made by the petitioners are false and incorrect. The respondents claim that the petitioners' grandfather, Malchalam Ramaiah, was not the protected tenant of the land in question. The respondents assert that their father, Poggaku Ramaiah, and their matemal grandfather, Mdchalam Ramaswamy, were the joint protected tenants of the land. They claim that Malchalam Ramaswamy had no children of his own and had adopted the respondents' mother. The respondents state that they had hled a review petjtion requesting a local enquiry to ascertain the facts. They claim that the enquiry revealed that Poggaku Ramaiall ald 6 .t Ma.lchalam Ramaswamy cultivated the land jointly. The respondents further assert that the petitioners' claim is false, and that their grandfather, Malchalam Ramaiah, never cultivated the land. They claim that the petitioners are trying to grab the land by filing false claims. The respondents state that the Joint Collector of Ranga Reddy District had disposed of the matter and set aside the revised succession granted in favor of the respondents. However, the respondents claim that the Joint Collector's order is incorrect, and that the matter should be adjudicated by a civil court. The respondents assert that there is no dispute regarding the lega1 heirs of the protected tenants, Poggaku Ramaiah and Malchalam Ramaswamy. They claim that the civil Court is the competent authorit5r to decide the matter.

10. Considering the submissions of 'learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that the present revision petition is filed challenging the order of Joint Collector, wherein the Joint Collector has set aside the order of Tahsildar which is not under challenge before him and also directed the parties to approach the civil Court to adjudicate ttle matter on succession. 7 l 1 1 , The main contention of revision petitioners is that though the order dated I l.L2.2OOL in File No.B/584/2OO1 is not challenged, the Joint Collector erroneouSly, set aside the same. The Tahsildar granted succession to both the parties under Section 4O of the Act, 1950, wherein poggaku Ramaiah and Malchalam Ramaiah are the original protected tenants. Consequently, the Tahsildar, revised his own order and issued another proceeding in F.No.B/S84/2OOt d,ated 29.O5.2OO4 and granted succession to the unoffrcial respondents undep Section 4O of the Act, 195O.

12. First of all, the Ta_hsildar has no power to review his own order and it is settled law that there is no provision under Tenancy Law for reviewing the order. There is no illegality in the order of Joint Collector to the extent of setting aside the order of Tahsildar to extent of review order. Whether, the Tahsildar has ilower to give succession certificate under Section 4O of the Act, 1950 is not the question before the Joint Collector, even though, there is no pleading before him, he set aside the order dated I l. 12.2O01, which is not in accordance with law. The only challenge before the Joint Collector is to set aside the review order. Therefore, the Joint ) I t \ Collector has to decide only to that extent and as there is no challenge to the earlier order, he cannot decide the same. Therefore, the order of Joint Coliector is confrrmed to the extent of setting aside the review order and the order to the' extent of directing the parties to go to the civil Court for succession certificate is set aside as the earlier order of the Tahsildar is not under challenge. However, the parties are at liberty to take their avenues in accordance with law to challenge the order dated 1L.12.2OO1 passed by the Tahsildar.

13. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if aly, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI PEPUW REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District. One CC to Sri Suresh Sagar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A. Keshava Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies I To, 1 2 3 4. DL/gh \ HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 I ORDER CRP.No.3576 of 2016 1 ( rAT (: Q i'.j c g 2 A BP 2025 u t, t C,1PEo t'+ t gO C.R.P. IS DISPOSED OF b 4 PK