PASUA BALIAH Vs. VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, dated 27th November, 1972, in file No.G/1507 of 1972 in and by which he held that he had jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules, 1956. The relevant facts are as follows: In 1951 the petitioner was declared as a protected tenant in respect of S. Nos. 92, 93, 97 and 98 of Premavati Village under section 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk. The respondents were the land holders of the said land. Subsequently in 1964, the Government acquired the lands for the purpose of Agricultural University. The petitioner claimed 60 per cent, of the compensation amount. At that stage the respondents filed an application, out of which this revision petition arises, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, under the Hyderabad Tenancy .Records (Correction) Rules, 1956, stating that they were pattadars and possessors of the aforesaid land, that they were acquired by the Government and the land acquisition proceedings were pending, that the petitioner (herein) was neither the possessor nor the tenant of the respondents, that he obtained a tenancy certificate in collusion with the Patwari of the village, that during the land acquisition proceedings the respondents came to know that the tenancy certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner, that they were not aware of the same earlier and that the petitioner's name should be deleted and the tenancy certificate should be corrected.

(2.) The petitioner filed a counter stating that he had taken the said lands on lease from one Purushothama Rao, about 25 years prior to the filing of the said petition, that by virtue of section 37 of the Act he was declared as a protected tenant and his name was entered in the final record of protected tenancies and a tenancy certificate was issued in his favour, that the allegation that the respondents were not aware of the issue of the tenancy certificate was not true, that the petition for correction of the entry in the records and for cancellation of the tenancy certificate was filed with the ulterior motive of claiming the entire compensation amount, that the tenancy certificate was validly issued to the petitioner, that the said proceedings could not be reopened, that the Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules, 1956, do not contemplate deletion and cancellation of the name of the protected tenant from the records, that before the tenancy certificate was issued the respondents and their father were given notice, but they did not file any objections, that the proceedings declaring the petitioner as protected tenant and the tenancy certificate issued in his favour were valid and binding on the respondents and that the petition for correction of the records was also belated.

(3.) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, by his order dated 16th August, 1971, allowed the petition and directed the deletion of the petitioner's name from the tenancy records pertaining to the aforesaid survey numbers. The petitioner then carried the matter in appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District, who, by his order dated 8th February, 1972 held that the Revenue Divisional Officer was competent to entertain the application for correction of the entries in the final record of tenancy and that the correction would include substitution, addition or deletion of the names. But he found that the enquiry made by the Revenue Divisional Officer was not complete and therefore allowed the appeal and remanded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer for de novo enquiry. After remand the matter was taken up by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West and he framed the following two points for consideration: (1) Whether an application for correction of the Tenancy record by deleting the name of a protected tenant is maintainable ; and (2) Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer has made proper enquiry before ordering the deletion of the name of the tenant from the final record of tenancy. It was argued before the Revenue Divisional Officer for the petitioner that the petition for deletion of the name of the tenant was not maintainable as the respondent failed to take appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Act and that it was not open to the respondents to invoke the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules, 1956, as the record of tenancy prepared under the Rules framed under sections 35 and 37 of the Act had become final. But the Revenue Divisional Officer overruled this objection and held that the petition was maintainable and that the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to correct the entries in the final records of tenancy by deletion of wrong entries and substitution of new names, wherever, necessary. In that view he posted the matter for enquiry and for recording of evidence of the parties. The petitioner has now filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.