Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1341 (TS)

G. Gopal Rao v. Joint Collector

2025-10-29

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order, dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Appeal No.F1/23/2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are the legal heirs of the [Joint Patta holders] i.e., Sri Khandoba Naik s/o Govindu naik and Sri Ramchander Rao s/o Seshagiri Rao. Sri Khandoba Naik died on 02.08.1998 and Sri Ramchander Rao died on 06.04.1987, leaving behind the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.4 and 5 as their successors to their estate. The names of late Sri Khandoba Naik and that of late Sri Ramchander Rao were reflected as pattadars in the Khasra Pahani (1954-55). It is further stated that at the material time when the A.P (T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture lands Act, 1950 has come into operation, and even prior to that, one Sri G.Pentaiah s/o Sayanna was in possession of the entire extent of land to an extent of Acs.16.01 gts., in Sy.No.35 of Masigundlapally village of Midjil Mandal, and hence, he was declared as protected tenant. A tenancy certificate in Form No.VI of the Act was issued in his favour for the entire area of Acs.16.01 gts., in Sy.No.35 of Masigundlapally village of Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as per Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. 3. It is further stated that as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.125 of 1973, dated 22.02.1973 and by virtue of his possession over the suit schedule lands on 01.01.1973, the protected tenant Sri G.Pentaiah was granted ownership certificate under section 38-E of the A.P(T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 (for short “The Tenancy Act”) for an extent of Acs.08.01 gts., from out of total extent of Acs.16.01 gts., leaving balance of Acs.08.00 gts., in Sy.No.35 of Masigundlapally village of Midjil mandal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in Form No.11 of Tenancy Act vide RDO’s office, reference No.B/28/74, along with other Sy.Nos.36 and 42 of Masigundlapally village of Midjil Mandal. 4. It is further stated that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, in the occupants column, the name of Mr.G.Pentaiah (protected tenant) is recorded, but in the certificate, his name is mentioned as T.Pentaiah, it may be by oversight or by the clerical mistake. 4. It is further stated that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, in the occupants column, the name of Mr.G.Pentaiah (protected tenant) is recorded, but in the certificate, his name is mentioned as T.Pentaiah, it may be by oversight or by the clerical mistake. It is further contended that the name of protected tenant in the Khasra Pahani being there mentioned as Mr.G.Pentaiah to an extent of Acs.08.00 under the Tenancy Act and Mr.G.Pentaiah was in possession of the remaining land for which he has no certificate. The issue now arose is that Mr.G.Pentaiah has sold away the property to the third parties and the petitioners made an application before the Joint Collector under section 10 of the Tenancy Act against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Midjil Mandal in respect of the land in Sy.No.35 an extent of Acs.08.00 guntas. 5. In the said application filed by the petitioner, it is contended that Sri Tapa Pentaiah continued to be in possession over the said land as cultivator for the entire extent of Acs.16-01 guntas, as owner for an extent of Ac.8-01 guntas and for balance extent of Ac.8-00 guntas he continued his possession as a tenant, for which Ownership Certificate is not been issued. It is the contention of the petitioner before the Joint Collector that later on he sold away not only an extent of Ac.8-01 guntas in Sy.No.35 (for which he was granted Ownership Certificate under section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act – 1950 in Form No.II by the R.D.O. Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No.B/2874, dated: -NIL- in favour of G.Pentaiah), but also sold the balance extent of Ac8-00 Guntas of land in Sy.No.35 for which Ownership Certificate was not issued. 6. It is further contended that the land in Sy.No.35 measuring extent of Ac.8-01 guntas for Ownership Certificate has been issued under section 38-E of the Act, was sold to respondent Nos. 3 to 7, and the balance area of Acs.8-00 guntas was sold to respondent Nos.8 to 16 without ownership rights either under section 38, l38-A, 38-B or 38-E of the Act. 3 to 7, and the balance area of Acs.8-00 guntas was sold to respondent Nos.8 to 16 without ownership rights either under section 38, l38-A, 38-B or 38-E of the Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that the protected tenant Sri G.Pentaiah, in whose favour the ownership certificate was granted, sold away the property after expiry of eight years from the date of grant of ownership certificate, but the extent of balance area of Ac.08-00 guntas in Sy.No.35 cannot be alienated without getting ownership rights under Section 38, 38-A, 38-B, or 38-E of the Act. 7. The learned Joint Collector, having considered the entire material placed on record, came to a conclusion that as per the Khasra Pahani 1954-55, the land bearing Sy.No.35 extent Acs.16.01 guntas of Masigundlapally village of Midjil Mandal which stands Patta in the names of Khandoba naik s/o Govind Rao and Ramchandar Rao s/o Seshagiri Rao. Sri Zinkala Pentaiah s/o Ananthaiah and Tappa Pentaiah s/o Sayanna were recorded as P.Ts against the above land. It was further revealed that Sri T.Pentaiah s/o Sayanna had been conferred with ownership rights under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act to an extent of Acs.08-01 guntas in Sy.No35 of Masigundlapally villge of Midjil Mandal in Ref.No.D/28/74 of the Additional revenue Divisional Officer (LR), Mahabubnagar. 8. The main plea of the appellants is that the ownership rights under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950 to an extent of Acs.08-01 guntas of Masigundlapally Village of Midjil Mandal and that 38-E holder has sold out the balance extent of Acs.08-00 guntas to third parties. The appellants herein have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his title and possession over the suit land, hence the same was dismissed. 9. The main contention of the petitioner is that an application was filed for cancellation of the entries which are effected in ROR and other registers and also to cancel the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds issued in the name of respondent Nos.8 to 16 and restore the possession of the said extent of Acs.08-00 guntas to the appellants Nos. The main contention of the petitioner is that an application was filed for cancellation of the entries which are effected in ROR and other registers and also to cancel the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds issued in the name of respondent Nos.8 to 16 and restore the possession of the said extent of Acs.08-00 guntas to the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 both as Pattadars and cultivators, since the Protected Tenant Sri G.Pentaiah has sold the said suit land measuring an extent of Acs.08-00 guntas., in Sy.No.35 of Masigundlapally Village of Midjil Mandal without consent of the pattadars or his legal heirs, as provided under section 44 of the Act. 10. The main grievance of the petitioner before the Joint Collector was that the alienation in favor of respondent Nos.8 to 16 measuring extent of Acs.08-00 guntas same is liable to be cancelled since P.T. Sri. G. Pentaiah, has violated the provision as laid down under section 30(1) of the Act. As per which the Joint Collector outght to have been decided by him, is any ownership certificate was issued in favour of Sri G. Pentaiah or whether there was any violation of the provision as laid down under section 3(1) of the Act. 11. Admittedly, as per the contention of the petitioner, Sri G.Pentaiah was a protected tenant and was in occupation of the said land, but he was not granted ownership rights in respect of the Acs.08-00 guntas of the land which is sold to the respondent Nos.8 to 16. 12. The said aspect of whether the said Sri G.Pentaiah was given the Ownership Certificate or not has to be determined and the relief sought for by the petitioner should have been considered. Before considering the same, it is necessary for the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the ownership certificate had been granted to Sri G.Pentaiah under section 38(E) of the said order, unless until the same is decided, the relief which is sought for by the petitioners cannot be decided. 13. As such, it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the Joint Collector for deciding the fact whether the said G.Sayanna was granted Ownership Certificate or not and then proceed further as per the law. 14. 13. As such, it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the Joint Collector for deciding the fact whether the said G.Sayanna was granted Ownership Certificate or not and then proceed further as per the law. 14. Hence, with these observations, the CRP is set aside and the case is remanded back to Joint Collector for deciding the matter afresh, especially in respect of the Ownership Certificate issued in respect of Sri G.Pentaiah and the question as to whether any ownership certificate has been issued to Sri G.Pentaiah and consequently to decide as to the transactions which are held by Sri G.Pentaiah in favour of respondent Nos.8 to 16 are valid or not pand pass appropriate orders accordingly. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Appeal No.F1/23/2018, dated 05.12.2019 and matter is remanded back for deciding the appeal afresh by the Joint Collector as per law as early and as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.