N YELLAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR R R DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.1.2005 passed in Appeal No.F2/706/2005 on the file of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District dated 9.7.2004 in proceedings pertaining to File No.B/1617/2001 has been set aside.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE father of the petitioners late N. Pentaiah was the original5protected tenant of Sy.No.93 measuring Acs.11-30 gts situated at Medchal Village and Mandal. It is not in dispute that one Subramanyam was the original landholder. THE sons of late N. Pentaiah along with the sons of brother of late N. Pentaiah filed an application for grant of succession of P.T rights on 19.5.2001. Notices were issued calling for objections and they were served upon the concerned individuals in the prescribed manner and in response to those notices, the respondents 3 and 4 herein filed objection petitions mainly contending that they purchased the land Acs. 11-38 guntas in Sy.No.93 in the year 1992 through registered sale deed and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also their case that Nacharam Pentaiah the original tenant had voluntarily surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the then landholder. THE Mandal Revenue Officer verified the P.T Register of Medchal Village and found that N. Pentaiah was the protected tenant of Sy.No.93 admeasuring Acs. 11-38 guntas, situated at Medchal Village and then having considered the proviso under Section 19(l)(a) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') and holding that the surrender of tenancy must be in writing and admitted before the Tahsildar and there is no evidence in this case to say that late N. Pentaiah surrendered his tenancy rights as per proviso to Section 19(1)(a) and further held that the tenancy rights are heritable and granted succession certificate in favour of the petitioners under Section 40 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 and 4 herein filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. THE Joint Collector having considered sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Act holding that the heirs shall be entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which the said protected tenant was holding the land at the time of his death and this condition is not complied with since the entries in the Khasara Pahani reveal that the protected tenant was not in possession of the land in 1954-55 i.e., during the year in which the Khasara Pahani was prepared and the only reasonable presumptions that can be drawn is that since the protected tenant seized to exist as a protected tenant, his name was not shown in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. It was also observed though in the P.T Register, the name of N. Pentaiah is recorded, but it is only a mistake and correcting the entries in P.T Register is only a ministerial act and therefore, the contention of the respondents 3 and 4 that the original tenant surrendered his rights is acceptable and accordingly allowed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?