RACHAPPA Vs. BHUMANI HANUMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the orders dated 24.10.2005 of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, made in Case No.F2/6148/2003, confirming the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharur Mandal, in File No.B/2374/ 2000, dated 2.7.2003, granting succession of P.T. rights, under Section 40 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), in favour of the respondents herein.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows. THE respondents herein, namely Bhumani Hanumaiah and Bhumani Chinnayya, claim to be the sons of late Chinna Yellappa, filed an application under Section 40 of the Act, seeking Succession Certificate on the ground that their father was the protected tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.2(old), corresponding new Survey No.4, admeasuring Acs.6-12 gts, situated at Gaddamedi Gangaram Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. THE petitioner herein, claiming to be the purchaser of the petition schedule property from the original pattadar through the sale deed dated 17.4.1970, filed objection petition contending, inter alia, that Bhumani Hanumaiah and Bhumani Chinnayya are not the sons of Chinna Yellappa and that they are the sons of one Lingappa. It appears that the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued notices on 14.2.2001, 7.4.2001 and on 29.4.2002, but there was no response from the petitioner and the respondents herein only attended the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer. THEn the Mandal Revenue Officer has called for a report from the Assistant Mandal Revenue Inspector, Dharur, who conducted local enquiry and panchanama in the presence of villagers and reported that one Bhumani Chinna Yellappa was the protected tenant over Survey No.2, admeasuring Acs.6-12 gts, of Gaddamedi Gangaram Village, and that he expired leaving behind him his legal heirs Bhumani Hanumaiah and Bhumani Chinnayya. THEn the Mandal Revenue Officer, after examining the revenue records i.e., khasra pahanis for the year 1954-55 of Gaddamidi Gangaram Village and having satisfied that one Smt. Vittamma was the pattedar of the land admeasuring Acs.6-12 gts, in Survey No.2 and as per Khoul Certificate No.712, dated 21.11.1954, said Vittamma gave the said land for khoul to Bhumani Chinna Yellappa as noted in Column No. 15 of Khasra Pahani, came to the conclusion that Bhumani Yellappa was the protected tenant and Bhumani Hanumaiah and Bhumani Chinnayya are the legal heirs of said protected tenant. Accordingly, he has granted succession in favour of Bhumani Hanumaiah and Bhumani Chinnayya, the respondents herein. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. THE learned Joint Collector, having gone through the entire record, came to the conclusion that the protected tenant has not surrendered his rights and there is no surrender in writing and that the revenue records show that B. Rachappa was the protected tenant. It is also noted that the father of the petitioner herein himself was the Patwari of the village during the relevant period and that he had shown the name of the petitioner as parallel cultivator and therefore the same cannot be accepted. Challenging the said order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) AS far as the decision in Om Prakash Agarwal v. Joint Collector, Adilabad (supra), is concerned, the person who claimed to be the son of the protected tenant was not the son of the original tenant and that the original protected tenant died issuless and whether one Thadaka Pothana is adopted son of late protected tenant or not is the issue and no evidence was adduced in support of the claim of Thadaka Pothanna. It was held that the burden is heavy on the second respondent (Thadaka Pothanna) to prove his contention and in such circumstances he should have approached a competent Civil Court seeking declaration under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. So validity of adoption was in question in that case. therefore, the facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case.