N SUDERSHAN REDDY Vs. KANNAMMA DECEAED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the Judgment of our learned brother M.N. Rao, J. in Writ Petition No. 5094/87, whereby he set aside the order of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in file No. B/6454/82 Dt. 20-1-1987 and remitted the matter to him for fresh disposal. The learned single Judge by his judgment dt 17-4-1990 had issued certain directions relating to the questions which are to be considered by the Collector, in disposing the matter afresh. The 3rd, 4th and 9th respondents in the Writ Petition have filed these appeals. We will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the Writ Petition.

(2.) One Narsing Rao who was an inamdar (Makhtadar) of certain lands. In 1335 Fasli (1925) when survey was conducted, Surveys Nos.67/1 and 67/2 were assigned to his lands. In the later survey conducted in 1341 Fasli (1931) Survey No. 279 was assigned to that inam land extending to Ac.49.39 guntas. Yet another survey was conducted in 1354 Fasli (1944) and Survey No. 279 was divided into Survey Nos. 349, 350, 351 and 352, aggregating Ac. 13.19 guntas. The remaining extent of Ac.36.20 guntas was assigned Survey Nos. 602 and 603. The inamdar Sri Narsinga Rao executed a perpetual lease for 99 years in favour of one Namassivayam on 27th Dai 1320 (1910) on an annual lease of Rs. 15.00. Neither the extent of the land nor the boundaries were mentioned in the lease deed. Only description was "Land Well, Gattu wet and dry", Kannamma, widow of Namassivayam, who was the first petitioner in the writ petition, executed a lease in 1350 Fasli (1940) in favour of Machikanti Veerayya, the 2nd respondent, on an annual rent of Rs. 15.15 annas. That lease was in respect of an extent of Ac.7.07 guntas. Radhamma, widow of the original Inamdar Narsing Rao, filed an application in 1963 before the District Revenue Officer, under Section 87 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, seeking correction of Survey record to include her name as the owner in respect of survey Nos. 602 and 603, having an extent of Ac.36.20 guntas. Her case was that even though she was in possession till 1963, the military authorities took possession without her consent. The competent authority recommended correction of the records in her favour, to the Government. Veerayya, the lessee from the 1st petitioner Kannamma, executed a lease deed allegedly on the basis of occupancy certificate as a protected tenant under the provisions of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in respect of Ac.7.07 guntas. Ac. 1.00 of land out of Ac. 13.19 guntas covered by Survey Nos. 349 to 352 was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Radhamma, widow of the Inamdar Narsinga Rao, and Veerayya the protected tenant sold the remaining extent of Ac. 12.19 guntas on 5-11-69 in favour of N. Sudershan Reddy, the 3rd respondent. Kannamma, the 1st petitioner died on 3-10-88, leaving behind her two daughters who are petitioners 2 and 3. On the death of Radhamma, the Widow of the original Inamdar, the 4th respondent was impleaded as her legal representative. Veerayya, the lessee from Kannamma having died, his Legal Representatives were brought on record as respondents 5 to 8.

(3.) Petitioners 2 an 3 filed O.S. 35/1 of 1953-54 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hyderabad against their mother Kannamma and her lessee Veerayya, challenging the legality of the lease executed by Kannamma in 1940 in favour of Veerayya. They claimed to be the rightful owners of the land, since according to them, the above lease deed was void and inoperative, since the widow of Namassivayam had only limited interest over the land and hence she had no right to execute a permanent lease deed in favour of Veeraya. That suit was dismissed in 1947. Petitioners 2 and 3 filed A.S. 79/63 before the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Veerayya filed cross-appeal as A.S. 152/63 in respect of certain findings of the trial Judge. The Additional Chief Judge held that the lease executed by Kannamma did not bind the plaintiffs (petitioners 2 and 3) but during the lifetime of Kannamma, the limited owner, her daughters were not entitled to bring an action for possession. The appellate court gave a declaration that the permanent lease executed by Kannamma in favour of Veeraya was invalid beyond the life time of Kannamma. In 1975, Kannamma had instituted proceedings under Section 87 of the Inam Abolition Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer against Sudershan Reddy (3rd respondent) and Bhaskar Rao, the 4th respondent L.R. of the deceased Radhamma. She claimed occupancy rights over the entire land of Ac.49.39 guntas covered by old survey No. 279. Similar claims were made on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the claims of Kannamma and Sudershan Reddy, and accepted the claim of Radhamma in respect of Survey Nos. 602 and 603 to an extent of Ac.36.20 guntas. The Revenue Divisional Officer also held that Machikanti Veerayya would continue to be the protected tenant of S.Nos.349 to 350 belonging to Kannamma. Kannamma and Sudershan Reddy, filed appeals before the District Collector, against that order. The District Collector remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who made a request to the Collector for clarification so as to enable him to take further action. In his order dt. 4-10-79,the District Collector issued amended appellate order setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 30-11-79.