RANGALAH S Vs. COLLECTOR MEDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge upholding the remand made by the Collector of Medak at Sangareddy for enquiry to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak relating to the validity of the claims of the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the appellants of both the appeals to the disputed lands. The facts relating to the cases are rather complex having undergone series of litigations including coming to this Court twice or thrice, for which it is necessary, for clear appreciation, to adumbrate those. Admittedly, the appellants in W.A. No.847/93 and the respondents in that appeal, who are the respondents 3 to 7 in W,A,No.l028/93, are claiming the land through one Surabhi Narasa Goud. The appellants in W.A.No.1028/93 is claiming the lands through the original Inamdar of the land. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in W.A. No.847/93 are referred in this judgment as appellants and the respondents 4 to 8 in that appeal are referred as respondents. The appellant in W.A.No.1028/93 is referred as the Inamdars.

(2.) The admitted facts are that Surabhi Narasa Goud got a declaration in his favour as a protected tenant under Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangaha Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950), referred to hereinafter as the Tenancy Act) in the year 1957 (as appears from the order of the Collector in Case No.B.2/28/85 dt. 13-2-1989) in respect of Survey Nos. 678 to 685 and 690 to 699 in Gummadidala village of Narsapur Taluq (presently Jinnaram Mandal) except S.No.679. It is however the case of the Inamdars that Sy.No.691 and 695 were surrendered by the tenants and therefore they are entitled to resume the land and paid compensation therefor, Narsa Goud executed an agreement of sale on 22-1 -1965 for consideration of Rs.21,500-00 for sale of Ac. 167-91 cents in Sy.Nos.678 to 685 and 690 to 695 to one Sri Bapaiah Choudary, who died on 1-10-1967. He was survived only by his daughter Smt. Surapaneni Sudheshana, wife of one Rama Rao. She executed an agreement on 1-1-1968 conceding the shares of the respondents in the lands as those persons had contributed money for purchasing the lands. Applications were made by the appellants under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act for being declared owners of the lands in which they succeeded on 23-3-1975 by orders passed by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal), the competent authority. In the proceedings one Sambasiva Rao, whose heirs are respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and one Prasada Rao, respondent No.4 had intervened claiming grant of patta in their favour on the basis of purchase purported to have been made under an agreement of sale from Bapaiah Choudary. The respondents, having been unsuccessful before the Tribunal, preferred appeal to the appellate authority the District Revenue Officer, Medak who dismissed the appeal on 27-7-1976. In the appeal the respondents set up the case of Narsa Goud to have been the Kabiz-e-Kadim in respect of the lands. The dismissal of the appeal was assailed in this Court in C.R.P.No.2179/76. While the parties were proceeding under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the mam was itself vested with effect from 20-7-1955 under A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Act VIII of 1955), referred hereinafter as the Inams Abolition Act. The appellants again applied for registration as occupants under that Act. That proceeding was confested by the respondents basing their claim on the agreement of sale dated 22-1-1965 executed by Narsa Goud in favour of Bapaiah Choudary. While the proceedingwas pending, C.R.P.No.2179/76 was disposed of by this Court on 18-11-1977 observing that grant of patta under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act would be subject to the orders passed under the Inams Abolition Act. The orders were passed under the Inams abolition Act by the competent authority i.e., the second respondent on 7-6-1979 rejecting the claim of respondents. The respondents filed W.P.No.5337/79 questioning the said order. The writ petition was disposed of on 5-9-1979 directing the respondents to file appeal before the first respondent. An appeal being so filed before the first respondent, he remanded the matter by order passed on 14-8-1980 to the second respondent for consideration afresh of all the claims of all the persons. The direction was challenged again in this Court in W.P.No.5250/80 which was disposed of on 3-11-1982 directing, while not interfering with the order of remand, that until the decision is made, the writ petitioner, who was in possession, could not be evicted and the order under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act could not be enforced and that it shall be subject to the orders passed under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act. Orders were passed by the second respondent on 10-8-1985, after holding additional enquiry, rejecting the claimof the respondents and upholding the contention of the appellants declaring that the appellants are "eligible for declaration for registration of protected tenants under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of the Abolition of the Inams of 1974" and issued patta certificates under Section 7 (1) of the Inams Abolition Act. He also held that Narsa Goud had already surrendered Sy.Nos.695 to 699 in favour of the inamdar-R.Ramgopal Rao though he had not taken possession of the lands and that those survey numbers are to be transferred in the name of said R.Ramgopal Rao, inamdar. The order was challenged before the first respondent in appeal, who by his order dt. 13-2-1989 reversed it disagreeing with the reasons advanced by the second respondent, upheld the claim of the appellants and remanded the matter to the second respondent to reconsider the claim of the respondents under the Inams Abolition Act for grant of occupancy rights as successors in interest, obviously, of late Narsa Goud. The appellants questioned the Order in W.P.No.4773/89 which having been dismissed, the present appeals have been preferred.

(3.) Mr.K.Pratap Reddy, arguing for the appellants, has raised tine question of Narsa Goud having been a protected tenant which is a heritable status, the present appellants as his heirs are entitled, as protected tenants to grant of occupancy right under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act. It is the further contention that Narsa Goud, as a protected tenant, had no authority to either sell or enter into an agreement of sale of the lands constituting the tenancy and hence the purported agreement of sale dated 22-1-1965 was void under which no right could accrue in favour of the respondents. The respondents even if might have been in possession of the land in pursuance of the document of 22-1-1965, which he does not concede, yet no defence under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is available to the respondents as the possession was illegal. Contesting the submissions, it is the submission of Mr.C.Poornaiah, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 8, that Narsa Goud was the Kabiz-e-Kadim who was under no disability to sell or contract for sale of the land. It is also contended that even if Narsa Goud is taken as a protected tenant, yet the agreement of sale executed by him was not void and that the respondents having been in possession of the land throughout since 1965, which was also confirmed in 145 Cr.P.C, proceedings in the year 1975, the appellants are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition.