Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 824 (TS)

Balguri Ilamma v. Ramavtar Singh

2025-06-09

G.RADHA RANI

body2025
ORDER : G.RADHA RANI, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - appellants aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2019 passed in Appeal No.F2/321/2018 by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, where under the order dated 29.08.2017 passed in File No.D/290/2016 dated 29.08.2017 by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, rejecting the claim of the petitioners herein for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy rights was confirmed. 2. The petitioners filed an application dated 01.12.2015 for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy Rights in respect of Survey Nos.101, 102 and 105 to 112, totally admeasuring Ac.13-16 guntas situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal of Rangareddy District based on the decree dated 13.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District declaring them as legal heirs of Balguri alias Oopari Laxmaiah. 3. As per their contention, their ancestor Sri Oopari (Balguri Laxmaiah, S/o.Balaiah) along with Gudala Shivaiah, S/o.Ramanna and Gudala Adavaiah, S/o.Sayanna were the protected tenants of the above extent of Ac.13-16 guntas of land situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal of Rangareddy District as per the certificate issued to them under Sections 35 & 37 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short "Tenancy Act"), 1950. Oopari Laxmaiah died on 27.08.1963 leaving behind his three sons namely Narsimha, Yadaiah and Swamy. Out of them, Yadaiah and Swamy died and the petitioners were the legal representatives of Yadaiah and Swamy. The petitioners along with other joint protected tenants Gudala Shivaiah and Adavaiah were cultivating the suit lands, in which they were having one-third share. They also filed an application under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy rights before the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short "MRO"), Rajendranagar Mandal. The same was dealt in C.No.B/216/2005 and the said application was dismissed observing that the petitioners would need to approach the Competent Civil Court for grant of succession and that the MRO had no jurisdiction to grant succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The appeal filed against it was also dismissed by the Joint Collector in File No.F2/5652/2006 on 28.04.2007 directing the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.S.No.2567 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The same was decreed on 13.02.2008 declaring them as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmaiah. The appeal filed against it was also dismissed by the Joint Collector in File No.F2/5652/2006 on 28.04.2007 directing the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.S.No.2567 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The same was decreed on 13.02.2008 declaring them as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmaiah. Having been declared as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmaiah by the Civil Court, they filed the present application for grant of succession under Section 40 and for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District vide order in File No.D/290/2016 dated 29.08.2017 rejected the application filed by the petitioners. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District under Section 90 of the AP(TA) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Joint Collector, Rangareddy District vide Case No.F2/321/2018 dated 04.05.2019. 5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application by the revenue authorities, the petitioners preferred this revision. 6. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Ruthvik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 4 and Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 5. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revenue authorities failed to consider the decree passed in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, which was a declaratory decree and erred in treating the same as an ex-parte decree. The Tahsildar and the Joint Collector failed to exercise the powers conferred on them under the Tenancy Act, 1950 in recognising the revision petitioners as legal representatives of the protected tenants inspite of the decree passed in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008. The Joint Collector erred in stating that no single proof of documentary evidence was filed by the revision petitioners to substantiate their claim as legal representatives of the protected tenants. The revision petitioners filed Certified Copies and Original Copy of the provisional certificate of the protected tenants, Family Member Certificate and a copy of the decree passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008. The decree in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 would establish the revision petitioners as the legal representatives of the protected tenants. The revision petitioners filed Certified Copies and Original Copy of the provisional certificate of the protected tenants, Family Member Certificate and a copy of the decree passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008. The decree in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 would establish the revision petitioners as the legal representatives of the protected tenants. The decree passed by a Competent Civil Court was binding on revenue Courts. The Tahsildar was not an Appellate authority over the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District and erred in going into the merits of the decree passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008. The revenue authorities had no power or right to interpret a decree passed by a Competent Civil Court. The revenue authorities failed to see that the decree passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District became final since no appeal was preferred and the same was binding on all the parties. The revision petitioners approached the Civil Court to obtain a declaration that they were the legal representatives of the protected tenants. The court below after calling for objections and ordering a paper publication and after receiving no objections, passed the decree. As such, the same was binding on the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities failed to see that a part of the subject land to an extent of Ac.0-19 guntas in Survey No.108, Ac.0-19 guntas in Survey No.107, Ac.0-23 guntas in Survey No.105 situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District was acquired for formation of Outer Ring Road, Hyderabad and the respondents had filed claim petitions and the revision petitioners filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming share as a protected tenant in the acquired land. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Civil Court and the same were numbered as Land Acquisition O.P.Nos.501 of 2008, 500 of 2008 and 499 of 2008 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District and in the said O.P.s., the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District by orders dated 13.08.2018, 04.09.2018 and 13.08.2018 respectively held that the revision petitioners were the legal representatives of the protected tenant Oopari Laxmaiah and awarded 60% of compensation to the revision petitioners and the said O.P.s., became final. The order of the Tahsildar was erroneous in alleging that the provisional certificate issued by the then Tahsildar was bogus, forged and came to a wrong conclusion without getting an expert opinion and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Joint Collector, Rangareddy District in Case No.F2/321/2018, dated 04.05.2019. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 4 as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 2, 3 and 5 contended that in the year 2006 and also in 2015, applications were made by the grand children of Oopari Laxmaiah after a long lapse of 40 years for succession under Section 40 of the AP (TA) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of one-third share of the subject land. The said applications were filed beyond limitation. The name of the original owner Vishwanath Singh was incorporated in the revenue records right from 1953 onwards till his death. During his lifetime Vishwanath Singh executed a registered Will deed dated 17.02.1976 in favor of his brother's son's i.e. the respondent No.1 in the CRP and one Jagadish Singh, the ancestor of respondents 2 to 5 in the CRP. The subject property was mutated in their names and it was continuing till date. Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favor. Right from 1953 onwards, the name of Vishwanath Singh and these respondents were appearing in the revenue records. They were also issued E-pattadar passbook and were paid rythu bandu by the State Government under rythu bandu scheme. The application filed by the revision petitioners i.e. the grand children of late Oopari Laxmaiah claiming one-third share of the subject land was dismissed by the MRO on 13.10.2006 and the said order was confirmed by the Joint Collector on 28.04.2007. Both the authorities' orders were further confirmed in C.R.P.No.3760 of 2008 by the Court vide order dated 12.03.2013. In the second round of litigation, again, the grand children of Oopari Laxmaiah made another application before the Tahsildar on the ground that they had obtained "Declaration of Legal Heirs" vide decree dated 13.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 and requested to grant succession. In the second round of litigation, again, the grand children of Oopari Laxmaiah made another application before the Tahsildar on the ground that they had obtained "Declaration of Legal Heirs" vide decree dated 13.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 and requested to grant succession. The Tahsildar observing that the judgment / decree was an ex-parte and respondents were not made as parties in the above suit and there was no adjudication of the claims with regard to the succession of the Protected Tenancy Rights, rejected the application by order dated 29.08.2017. The said order of the Tahsildar was confirmed by the Joint Collector by order dated 04.05.2019. The petitioners admittedly had not made the respondents as parties in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 and the subject property was also not shown in the suit. The petitioners not approached the Court below with clean hands, as such, they were not entitled for the discretionary relief and the decree was not binding on the respondents and prayed to dismiss the CRP. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector, Rangareddy District & Another v. D.Narsing Rao and Others , [ (2015) 3 SCC 695 ] , Ponnala Narsing Rao v. Nallolla Pentaiah and Others , [ (1998) 9 SCC 183 ] and of the Division Bench of this Court in Vorla Ramachandra Reddy and another v. Joint Collector-I, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad and Others , [ 2021 (5) ALD 477 (TS)] 10. Now the point for consideration in this CRP is whether the order passed by the Joint Collector and the Tahsildar was within the power conferred on them under the Tenancy Act, 1950 in not recognising the revision petitioners as legal representatives of the Protected Tenant inspite of the decree in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. 11. As seen from the facts of the case, this is a second round of litigation initiated by the petitioners claiming succession as the legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmaiah. The petitioners initially filed an application for grant of succession before the MRO, Rajendranagar vide C.No.B/216/2005 claiming that their grandfather Oopari Laxmaiah along with two others namely Gudala Shivaiah and Gudala Adavaiah were protected tenants of land in Survey Nos.101, 102 and 105 to 112, total admeasuring Ac.13-16 guntas situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioners initially filed an application for grant of succession before the MRO, Rajendranagar vide C.No.B/216/2005 claiming that their grandfather Oopari Laxmaiah along with two others namely Gudala Shivaiah and Gudala Adavaiah were protected tenants of land in Survey Nos.101, 102 and 105 to 112, total admeasuring Ac.13-16 guntas situated at Laxmiguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Out of which, their grandfather was having one-third share and to that extent a certificate under Sections 35 and 37 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 was issued. They further contended that their grandfather Oopari Laxmaiah died in the year 1963 learning behind his three sons namely Narsimha, Yadaiah and Swami. Out of the three sons, Yadaiah died during the year 1975 leaving behind the petitioners 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and Swamy died during the year 1991 leaving behind the petitioners 5 to 8 herein as his legal heirs. The said application was dismissed by the MRO, Rajendranagar on 13.10.2006 on the ground that the MRO had no jurisdiction to grant succession and that the petitioners should obtain such declaration for succession of Protected Tenancy rights from the Competent Civil Court. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order in File No.F2/5652/2006 was also dismissed on 28.04.2007. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner Appeals, O/o.The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in File No.P5/562/2007 was dismissed on 06.06.2008. The petitioners further carried the matter in revision before this Court and vide C.R.P.No.3760 of 2008, the said revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.03.2013. 12. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.2567 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District seeking declaration as legal heirs of Balguri alias Oopari Laxmaiah by showing the defendants as ‘all concerned’. They filed a paper publication and as no objections were received, the said suit was decreed on 13.02.2008 in their favor declaring them as legal heirs of late Balguri alias Oopari Laxmaiah. 13. Basing on the said judgment and decree obtained, they initiated the second round of litigation and filed an application for grant of succession under Section 40 and for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 before the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal on 01.12.2015. 13. Basing on the said judgment and decree obtained, they initiated the second round of litigation and filed an application for grant of succession under Section 40 and for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 before the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal on 01.12.2015. The Tahsildar observing that in O.S.No.2567 of 2007, the petitioners failed to bring the respondent and his family members nor the Tahsildar as parties to the said suit and there was no reference to the suit lands and there was no relief with regard to succession of tenancy rights in the said suit prayed for by the petitioners, dismissed the petition. The Tahsildar specifically observed that: "vi. A perusal of the said judgment and decree shows that nobody was made defendants and it was filed only against "all concerned". The respondents are not made as defendants to the suit and there is no reference to the subject lands and the PT rights. Thus, there was no opportunity to the respondents to put forth their case. The judgment dated 13-02-2008 in OS 2567/2007 reads "objections not filed. Sworn affidavit of PW 1 is filed. Exs.A1 to A5 are marked. Suit claim is proved. Hence the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of Balguri Oopari Laxmaiah. No costs". On the face of it, the judgment is an ex-parte one without there being adjudication on merits. Such a judgment and decree does not amount to adjudication of the claims with regard to succession of PT rights in the absence of respondents who are proper and necessary parties to the suit being the land holders. While in all earlier proceedings the respondents were made parties, it is not explained as to why they were not made parties in O.S.No.2567/2007, especially when it was filed after the order of appellate authority and Joint Collector to approach the competent civil court for relief. It shows that they willfully omitted to make the respondents and also the MRO as parties to the suit with a view to get an ex-parte order. The decree thus obtained is not binding on the respondents or this authority. Further the relief prayed is also not specifically for declaring them as the lineal descendants of the original PT by showing details of lands held by him as such. The defendants are shown as "all concerned". The decree thus obtained is not binding on the respondents or this authority. Further the relief prayed is also not specifically for declaring them as the lineal descendants of the original PT by showing details of lands held by him as such. The defendants are shown as "all concerned". When the names of parties interested in the property covered by the suit are not known or could be ascertained, the same is permitted. But in the instant case, the names of interested persons namely the land holders were very much known to the petitioners and that all earlier proceedings were filed against them. There was no satisfactory reason as to why they were not made as parties in the suit filed. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the petitioners willfully omitted to make them as parties with a view to get an order in their favor. Further there was no specific prayer to declare them as lineal descendants within the meaning of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act 1950, by showing details of the lands claimed to have been held by late Laxmaiah as Protected Tenant. Thus the judgment and decree obtained does not help to recognize the petitioners as the lineal descendants of late Oopari Laxmaiah claimed to be the Protected Tenant of the subject lands within the meaning of Section 40 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act , 1950." 14. The learned Joint Collector also confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal observing that no documentary evidence was filed by the appellants to substantiate their claim as legal representatives of the Protected Tenant of the land in question apart from what were filed and agitated before the lower court. 15. The petitioners had filed the suit for declaration of their status as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmiah under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963. As per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act , it was the discretion of the Court to declare the status or their right. 16. 15. The petitioners had filed the suit for declaration of their status as legal heirs of late Oopari Laxmiah under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963. As per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act , it was the discretion of the Court to declare the status or their right. 16. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 reads as follows: “ Section 34: Discretion of the Court as declaration status or right: Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.” 17. Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 speaks about effect of such declaration. It reads as follows: “Section 35: Effect of Declaration - A declaration made under this Chapter is binding only on the parties to the suit, persons claiming through them respectively, and, where any of the parties are trustees, on the persons for whom, if in existence at the date of declaration, such parties would be trustees.” 18. Admittedly, the respondents were not made as parties in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 and the subject property was also not shown in the suit. Only on the basis of the version of the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed. No opportunity was provided to the respondents, as they were not made as parties. The suit was filed only against "all concerned". The Protected Tenancy certificate was also not filed before the said Court and no finding was invited on the alleged Protected Tenancy right over the subject lands and their entitlement to claim succession by establishing their relationship with the original protected tenant. The petitioners ought to have made the respondents as parties to the suit in view of the earlier litigation initiated by them. Non-joining the respondents as parties in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 would show that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands. As such, the MRO rightly held that the judgment and decree do not help to recognize the petitioners as the lineal descendants of late Oopari Laxmaiah within the meaning of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. Non-joining the respondents as parties in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 would show that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands. As such, the MRO rightly held that the judgment and decree do not help to recognize the petitioners as the lineal descendants of late Oopari Laxmaiah within the meaning of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. Mere decree declaring the petitioners as legal heirs cannot be basis for grant of succession of Protected Tenancy rights under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The suit filed by the petitioners seeking declaration of legal heirs was not the suit as contemplated in the orders passed by the MRO and as confirmed by the higher authorities in the earlier round of proceedings. The petitioners ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration to declare that their grandfather was the protected tenant and that they were the successors of the protected tenant in respect of the subject land by making respondents 1 to 5 as defendants in the suit. 19. The subject matter of the Land Acquisition proceedings was only with regard to a portion of the land in Survey No.105 admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas, Survey No.107 admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas and Survey No.108 admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.1-21 guntas of Laxmiguda Village, whereas the subject matter of the present proceedings is to an extent of Ac.13- 16 guntas covered by various survey numbers. The balance extent of Ac.11-35 guntas is not the subject matter of the said O.Ps. Therefore, the order in the said O.P. cannot be relied upon for the subject lands in the present proceedings, which are not covered by the said O.Ps. However it was reported that the respondents have filed appeals before the High Court vide A.S.S.R.Nos.68709, 68712 & 68716 of 2018 to set aside the ex-parte orders passed in the above L.A.O.Ps., and that the said appeals were now pending. There is no finding in the orders in the said O.Ps. that the petitioners herein were the lineal descendants of the alleged Protected tenants. 20. It was claimed by the petitioners that there were three joint tenants over the subject land namely Oopari Laxmaiah, Gudala Shivaiah and Gudala Adavaiah with one-third share of protected tenancy rights. The petitioners were now claiming that they were the legal heirs of Oopari Laxmaiah. No claim was made by the other two alleged joint tenants. 20. It was claimed by the petitioners that there were three joint tenants over the subject land namely Oopari Laxmaiah, Gudala Shivaiah and Gudala Adavaiah with one-third share of protected tenancy rights. The petitioners were now claiming that they were the legal heirs of Oopari Laxmaiah. No claim was made by the other two alleged joint tenants. The respondents were disputing the very claim of the protected tenancy rights of the petitioners over the subject land. The claim was filed by third generation persons more than 40 years after the death of the original protected tenant and after the death of more than 30 years and 15 years of the death of his sons. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and Another v. D.Narsing Rao and Others (cited supra), held that: “Even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. Delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity: for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.” 22. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity: for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.” 22. The Division Bench of this Court in Vorla Ramachandra Reddy and another v. Joint Collector - I, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad and Others (cited supra) also held that: “The authorities are expected to exercise reasonable care and caution while enquiring into claims filed belatedly under Section 32 of the Act by trying to take undue advantage of the beneficial legislation. The MRO, who is the original authority under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, is also the original/recording authority under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1979 (for short 'ROR Act'). The MRO was under a mandate to conduct a preliminary enquiry on the basis of the revenue records so as to verify as to whether there was any change in the title. It was also necessary to find out whether the protected tenancy rights had been surrendered or not and the land was capable of being used for agricultural purposes. It was clear from a perusal of the above Rules that the Tahsildar shall have to conduct a necessary enquiry as to who is in the alleged wrongful possession of the lands in question.” 23. The order of the MRO dated 29.08.2017 would disclose that: “As can be seen from the revenue records right from 1955 till now neither the names of Laxmaiah nor of his sons namely Narsimha, Yadaiah and Swamy nor of the petitioners are reflected. The name of Vishwanath Singh was recorded as owner and possessor of the suit lands and after his death, the names of Ramavatar Singh and Jagadish Singh are recorded." Though even according to the petitioners, Laxmaiah died in 1963 and his two sons Yadaiah and Swami died in 1975 and 1991 respectively, no steps have been taken to obtain succession rights. The respondents also disputed the certificate issued under Sections 35 & 37 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 contending that it was a fabricated document, as there was no seal and signature of the concerned officer and some survey numbers were written on the reverse of the alleged certificate without any authenticating signature.” 24. The respondents also disputed the certificate issued under Sections 35 & 37 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 contending that it was a fabricated document, as there was no seal and signature of the concerned officer and some survey numbers were written on the reverse of the alleged certificate without any authenticating signature.” 24. Thus, the very existence of the Protected Tenancy rights were disputed by the respondents and when the petitioners were claiming for succession of protected tenancy rights after more than 40 years of the death of protected tenant and after 20 years of the death of his sons, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioners to file a comprehensive suit against the respondents herein claiming protected tenancy rights in respect of the subject lands. Admittedly, no such suit was filed claiming protected tenancy rights of suit lands and the respondents were not made as parties to the suit. The declaration that a particular person is a legal heir is different from a declaration that a particular person is a lineal descendant of a protected tenant in respect of a specific land. The petitioners had also not shown the land in Survey No.113 in the alleged Protected Tenancy right certificate filed by them. Only the remaining survey numbers were shown in the provisional certificate, which certificate was denied by the respondents as a fabricated document. 25. In view of the petitioners not approaching the Court with clean hands, not showing the respondents as parties in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 and not showing the survey No.113 in O.S.No.2567 of 2007, but now adding it in the present revision petition showing the land as an extent of Ac.15-02 guntas instead of Ac.13-16 guntas, which was filed pertaining to the other survey numbers, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders of the Tahsildar as well as the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District in not recognizing the revision petitioners as legal representatives of the protected tenant inspite of the decree in O.S.No.2567 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. 26. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the revenue authorities passed in File No.D/290/2016 dated 29.08.2017 by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal and File No.F2/321/2018, dated 04.05.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. No order as to costs. 26. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the revenue authorities passed in File No.D/290/2016 dated 29.08.2017 by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal and File No.F2/321/2018, dated 04.05.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.