ORDER : B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. Order in Proceedings No.B/169/2019 dated 08.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3 - the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ghatkesar, Medchal District, is questioned in this writ petition as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2.1. The record filed in the writ petition reveals that respondent No.4 - the Secretary, Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board, Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, approached respondent No.3 and furnished list of Bhoodan lands of Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District, to incorporate the land admeasuring Acs.20-00 in Survey Nos.1080 and 1084 situated in Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as Bhoodan Lands. 2.2. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued a Memo bearing No.BE1/900/2006 dated 23.09.2006, to the then Panchayat Secretary, Edulabad Village, to record the subject land in the revenue records as Bhoodan Land. The Panchayat Secretary, Edulabad Village complied with the orders of respondent No.3 recording the subject land as Bhoodan Land. 2.3. Aggrieved by the Memo No.BE1/900/2006 dated 23.09.2006 issued by respondent No.3 dated 23.09.2006, W.P. No.15223 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner Nos.1, 2 herein and two others viz., (1) Mr. Udari Satyanarayana, (2) Mr. Udari Shiv Kumar, (3) Mr. Udari Krishna Murthy and (4) Mr. Udari Sudershan who are the sons of late Mr. Udari Laxmaiah, resident of Tenugudem, Hamlet of Korremal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 20.06.2019 setting aside the impugned Memo in respect of the subject land with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh. In compliance of the same, respondent No.3 issued notices to the petitioners and others by calling upon them to file their claims and objections along with documents; and the petitioners filed their written arguments. Upon considering the claims of the petitioners and their contentions, impugned order in Proceedings No.B/169/2019 dated 08.06.2022 was passed by respondent No.3. 2.4. The case of the petitioners is that sale certificate was issued to their father Mr. Udari Laxmaiah under Section 38(6) of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘Tenancy Act 1950’) on 27.05.1967 in File No.H/2213/67 in respect of the land in Survey Nos.1080 and 1084, and another Certificate in File No.H/2551/67 in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.1083 and 1087 on the same date. Udari Laxmaiah under Section 38(6) of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘Tenancy Act 1950’) on 27.05.1967 in File No.H/2213/67 in respect of the land in Survey Nos.1080 and 1084, and another Certificate in File No.H/2551/67 in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.1083 and 1087 on the same date. Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 presupposes existence of protected tenancy rights right from 1950. Assuming that Raja Triyambak Nandlal was the owner and pattadar of the subject land in 1954, the father of the petitioners who was protected tenant of the same much prior to that had a pre-existing right. Section 2(j) of the Telangana Bhoodan and Gramadan Act 1965 (for short ‘Bhoodan Act’) defines who is owner which also includes a protected tenant. In view of the said provision, the alleged donation by Raja Triyambak Nandlal and consequential acceptance by respondent No.3 is void ab initio. The transfer of land is illegal in view of Section 36(6) and 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 and Section 2(j)(4) of the Bhoodan Act. As alleged donation on 26.01.1954 itself is void, the consequential relinquishment / rajinama made on 17.03.1954 and its acceptance by respondent No.3 on 26.03.1963 are equally void. 3.1. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit contending that that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.15223 of 2007 dated 20.06.2019, W.P. No.162929 of 2020 dated 14.12.2020 and C.C. No.833 of 2021 dated 17.06.2022 , notices were issued to the petitioners by respondent No.4. A detailed enquiry was conducted. 3.2. Basing on the documentary evidence available on record, impugned order dated 08.06.2022 was passed directing the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance; as the subject lands are recorded in the name of respondent No.4 - Bhoodan Yagna Board, respondent No.3 does not have power to rectify the entries unless those lands are deleted and the assignments made therein are cancelled; the petitioners have to challenge the donations and relinquishment of original patta before the appropriate forum and get the order rectifying the revenue records. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 4. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is contended that the original pattadar Raja Triyambak Nandlal has donated the subject lands to respondent No.4 and relinquished his rights through the rajinama dated 17.03.1954 much prior to the alleged Tenancy Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 dated 03.05.1967 issued in favour of Mr. Udari Laxmaiah, son of Mr. Udari Pochaiah and Mr. Mettu Enkaiah, son of Mr. Mallaiah. The Bhoodan Act came into force with effect from 10.05.1965 and the subject land donated to the Board prior to the Bhoodan Act automatically vested in the Board by operation of the Act. The subject land was donated by the Pattadar Raja Triyambak Nandlal on 26.01.1954. He executed relinquishment deed on 17.03.1954 and the same was accepted by respondent No.3 vide File No.E1/1048/1963 dated 23.03.1963 whereas the Tenancy Certificate under Section 38(6) of Tenancy Act 1950 was issued in 1967. 5. Heard Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Kiran Kumar Gattu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 - Bhoodan Board, and perused the material on record. 6. Section 2(j)(4) of the Bhoodan Act reads as under: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (j) ‘owner’ includes- (4) a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 who has been personally cultivating the land under his protected tenancy at the time of donation, in respect of the right possessed by him in the land;” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the additional documents filed along with Memo dated 05.09.2024. The Khasra Pahani of Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Taluqa reflects the following entries: SUR VEY No. LAND NAME CESS PATTADA R NAME INAMDAR NAME PATTADAR NAME OTHER RIGHT YEAR CULTIVATION 1 4 7 13 I 15 16 17 1084 10-00 TRAIMBA K LAL TRAIMBAK LAL MUSUGU METTAIAH BAKKANI GUDAI 0-5-4 1954-55 PADAVA MUSUGU MALLAIAH S/o MALLAIAH UDARI LAXMAIAH 0-2-4 UDARI LAXMAIAH S/o POCHAIAH METTU YENKAIAH 0-2-8 METTU YENKAIAH S/o MALLAIAH METTU MALLAIAH KORREMULA 0-2-8 METTU MALLAIAH S/o KOMURAIAH DOULATH RAJU 0-2-8 DOULATH RAJU S/o GANESH PERSHAD HYDERABAD 8. The Faisal Patti (endorsement of mutation of patta) of the Edulabad Village, Sharki Taluqa, Hyderabad District for the year 1967-68 discloses name of the protected tenant Mr. The Faisal Patti (endorsement of mutation of patta) of the Edulabad Village, Sharki Taluqa, Hyderabad District for the year 1967-68 discloses name of the protected tenant Mr. Udari Laxmaiah as purchaser of the land admeasuring Acs.20.00 in Survey Nos.1084 and 1080. Accordingly, name of the owner Raja Triyambak Lal was directed to be removed and name of Mr. Udari Laxmaiah was incorporated. It is mentioned in Column No.11 of the Khasra Pahani that the land to an extent of Acs.20.00 in Survey No.1084 and 1080 with an assessment cess of Rs.20.11 was recorded in the name of Raja Triyambak Lal and permission may be granted for recording the name of the protected tenant Mr. Udari Laxmaiah in Dispatch No.2213/67 dated 27.05.1967 and permission may be sanctioned under wargkami (decrease of extent) for deleting the name of Raja Triyambak Lal; Ayin Iizafa (Ain - Assessment; Izafa - Increase/addition) was sanctioned in the name of the protected tenant Mr. Udari Laxmaiah. It is thus clear, by the time the subject lands were allegedly donated by Raja Triyambak Nandlal to the Bhoodan Board in 1954, Mr. Udari Laxmaiah was already a protected tenant and subsequently in 1967, he was issued ownership Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950. 9. Now the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is ‘whether a land burdened with protected tenancy rights could have been donated by the Pattadar to the Board?’ 10. Respondent No.3 recorded the following findings in the impugned order: “On verification of the Revenue records, documents and records filed by both parties it is construed that, as per the Revenue records, the Donor namely, Sri.Raja Triyambak Nandlal was the pattedar/land owner in the subject lands and he has donated the subject lands to A.P. Bhoodan Yagana Board and relinquished his rights over the subject lands through Rajinama dated 17.03.1954, prior to the issue of certificates U/s.38(6) vide File No.H/2213/67 and File No.H/2551/67 dated.03-05-1967 in favour of Sri. Udari Laxmaiah S/o Pochaiah and Sri.Mettu Enkaiah S/o.Mallaiah. In the said U/s.38(6) certificate, it is clearly mentioned that, Sri.Raja Triyambak Nandlal S/o. Raja Mohan Lal, was the Pattedar of the subject lands. The Bhoodan Act 1965 came into force w.e.f. 10.05.1965 and all the lands donated to the Board prior to the said Act, automatically stood vested in the Board by operation of law i.e., the Bhoodan Act 1965. The Bhoodan Act 1965 came into force w.e.f. 10.05.1965 and all the lands donated to the Board prior to the said Act, automatically stood vested in the Board by operation of law i.e., the Bhoodan Act 1965. In this case the land was donated by the pattadar in the year 1954 i.e., on 26.01.1954 and executed Relinquishment / Rajinama on 17.03.1954 and the same was accepted by the Tahsildar, vide ref No:E1/1048/1963 dt:23.03.1963. Whereas, the certificate issued in 1967 (.05.1967), under the provisions of subsection 6 of Section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act XXI 1950, by the time of issuance of certificate U/s 38(6) to the petitioner the pattadar was not having any right / title over the subject land. The Government officials are duty bounded to implement the instructions and guide liens if any issued time to time to protect the interest over the government land and safe guard the government properties. It is for the petitioner, aggrieved by the action of the pattadar and Bhoodan Board at the first instance they have to challenge the Relinquishment/ Rajinama given by the pattadar under the provisions of Bhoodan Act 1965 and its acceptance by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad East Taluk vide Lr.No.E1/1048/1963, Dt:23.03.1963 and after for redressal of grievance if any, they have to proceed by putting evidence of their rights under the provision of Telangana Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1950 before the authority competent under appropriate forum of law. With the above observations the case is disposed off.” 11. Respondent No.3 held that the petitioner cannot claim ownership on the strength of ownership Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950 issued in 1967 when the pattadar/landlord has donated the same in 1954 and rajinama / relinquishment was accepted by respondent No.3 in 1963. In the opinion of this Court, when the subject land is burdened with protected tenancy rights, the transfer of land under sale or gift, as the case may be, can be only subject to protected tenancy rights. The provisions of the Bhoodan Act, more particularly, Section 2(j)(4) of the Bhoodan Act, recognizes the right of a protected tenant. The said provision clearly indicates that a land which is donated cannot be transferred absolutely in favour of the Board unless the protected tenant also gives consent. The provisions of the Bhoodan Act, more particularly, Section 2(j)(4) of the Bhoodan Act, recognizes the right of a protected tenant. The said provision clearly indicates that a land which is donated cannot be transferred absolutely in favour of the Board unless the protected tenant also gives consent. A tenant or a protected tenant, as the case may be, cannot alienate the land as he has a limited interest over the land and not title. Thus, for absolute transfer of title, it is necessary for both landlord and tenant to donate. The rights of the protected tenancy would not get extinguished merely because there has been donation of the land by the pattadar Raja Triyambak Nandlal in favour of respondent No.4. As per Section 104 of the Tenancy Act 1950, this Act has overriding effect over other enactments. Tenancy cannot be terminated except in accordance with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act 1950. So long as the subject land is encumbered and covered by the protected tenancy rights, the alleged transfer of subject land in 1954 under rajinama cannot be absolute. 12. A person is deemed to be protected tenant as per Section 34 of the Tenancy Act 1950 if he has held the subject land as tenant continuously for a period of not less than six (6) years between Fasli years 1343 to 1352 (1933 to 1942) or immediately preceding the 1 st day of January 1948 or not earlier than the 1 st day of the Fasli year 1353 (6 th October 1943). The Khasra Pahani (1954-55) and Faisal Patti (1967-68) clearly reflects name of Mr. Udari Laxmaiah as protected tenant. Thus, prior to the alleged donation (1954) of the subject lands to respondent No.4 by the Raja Triyambak Nandlal, Mr. Udari Laxmaiah and Mr. Pochaiah had pre-existing protected tenancy rights over the same. Such protected tenancy rights cannot be negated or would get extinguished by the alleged donation made by the landlord / pattedar. This crucial aspect has been missed out by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. Respondent No.3 failed to notice that the pre-existing (prior to 1954) protected tenancy rights of Mr. Udari Laxaiah have enlarged into ownership rights (in 1967) by virtue of tenancy certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 14. Respondent No.3 failed to notice that the pre-existing (prior to 1954) protected tenancy rights of Mr. Udari Laxaiah have enlarged into ownership rights (in 1967) by virtue of tenancy certificate under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act 1950. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 14. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order in Proceedings No.B/169/2009 dated 08.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioners in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.20-00 in Survey Nos.1080 and 1084 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without reference to the relinquishment deed / rajinama dated 17.03.1954 by following due process of law and relevant provisions of the record of rights. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.