POTTA NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. R D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of Ac. 8.00 of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 108, 109 and 110 of Medepalli village, Enkoor Mandal, Khammam District is the subject matter of the writ petition. Indeed, it has been subject matter of disputes under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('the Act' for brevity). It is alleged that the third respondent is a tenant of the said land. In April 1958, he sold the land to two persons who in turn by a registered sale deed dated 15-6-1961 sold an extent of Ac. 6.00 to one Ratnakumari. Based on the title deed she also appears to have obtained necessary passbook under A.P. Record of Rights Act. When there was interference with her possession, she filed a suit being O.S.NO. 190 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Kothagudem for injunction and the same was decreed on 24-8-1997. She was in possession throughout and on 22-3-1995 the petitioners herein purchased an extent of Ac. 6.00 under registered sale deed. It is now admitted before this Court that the land demised by Ratnakumari in favour of the petitioners admeasures only Ac. 5.00. Be that as it may, after obtaining the sale deed, the petitioners have been continuously in possession of the property. These facts are not denied.

(2.) The fourth respondent herein who is the son of the third respondent approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kothagudem, first respondent herein, by making an application on 3-8-1999 requesting to restore possession of the land in Sy.Nos. 108, 109 and 110 admeasuring Ac. 8.00. The RDO issued necessary notices to the concerned persons and relying on the photostat copies of the certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act to the third respondent and other Revenue records, ordered the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Enkoor (second respondent) to conduct enquiry in the matter. The MRO submitted Enquiry Report vide his letters dated 15-2-2000 and 12-4-2000. Based on the said report, it was observed by the first respondent that the third respondent was given a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act on 1-1-1973 whereas the present occupants, probably the petitioners, came into possession of the land during 1995-96. The first respondent after considering the record found that the third respondent is a protected tenant and he is entitled for all the rights under the Act. Accordingly, by Proceedings in L.Dis.No.C-2554/99 dated 23-5-2000, directed the second respondent to take further action under Section 32 of the Act. While doing so, the first respondent rejected the contention of the petitioners herein that they are bona fide purchasers of the land on the ground that the provisions of Section 50-B of the Act which provides that the alienee or transferee has to make an application to the Tahsildar for a certificate declaring the alienation or transfer made by the successors-in-title of the protected tenant in favour of the petitioners is valid, have not been fulfilled and held that the alienation or transfer is invalid. This order of the first respondent is challenged in this case.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao submits that while remanding the matter to the second respondent to proceed further in accordance with Section 32 of the Act, the first respondent ought not to have made any observation with regard to the right of the third respondent as a protected tenant to get back possession of with regard to the invalidity or otherwise of the sale in favour of the petitioners effected by Ratnakumari. He also submits that Section 32 of the Act is only the provision for restoring possession to a protected tenant who on the date of issue of certificate under Section 38-E of the Act is not in possession and that while restoring possession to the protected tenant, the Tahsildar shall have to conduct an enquiry under Section 32 of the Act. The impugned order of the first respondent renders the procedure under Section 32 of the Act nugatory and, therefore, cannot be sustained.