SAMALA VENKALAH Vs. BAKKA NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 91 of the A P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The petitioners before me are the landholders.

(2.) For the purpose of understanding the points arising in this revision, it is necessary to note the following facts:- One Narayana had three sons - Antaish. Venkaiah and Sankaraiah. Antaiah was the eldest. Antaiah died and his son is Vithal Rao. The petitioners before mE are Venkaiah, Sankaraiah and Vithal Rao. The Respondents 1 to 9 claim to be protected tenants. It is the case of landholders that they had made various alienations only in favour of the protected tenants. This revision was dismissed earlier as against the respondents 2,3,4 and 8, but it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A Pulla Reddy that the contesting respondent in this revision is only the 1st Respondent and that so far as others are concerned, the landholders had sold away various extents to those tenants. During the hearing of the case, Sri C R Pratap Reddy filed vakalat for the 1st Respondant. Other respondents were served, but did not appear. The R D 0 took up the matter under Section 38-E and prepared a provisional list some time in 1974. Thereafter, the petitioners' landholders filed an objection petition on 12-9-1974 raising various objections. They contended that originally the property belonged to the father of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the grand-father of the 3rd petitioner, that he died long back (now said to be before 1950) and that succession was granted in the name of the eldest son Antaiah, treating the two brothers Venkaiah and Sankaraiah as shikmidars. After the death of Antaiah, seven years prior to 1974 i.e. in 1967, the petitioners again applied to the Tahsiidar, Hyderabad East for grant of succession and for mutation giving an equal 1/3rd share to each of the three petitioners. The said proceedings are pending. It is also stated that the three petitioners have been living separately since a long time. In 1962, the Tahsil Office issued notices to each of these three sharers, which itself establishes that they are having separate shares. The lands bearing S Nos. 75.210,226,228 230 and 219 admeasuring Ac. 51.09 gts. are held to be the share of the three sharers. Each sharer is, therefore, entitled to Ac. 17-03 gts. approximately and that being within the extent of holding permissible under Section 38-E read with section 38 (7), there is no question of transfer of ownership to the protected tenants. They further stated that all the lands were sold away, except the extent of Ac. 51.09 gts. mentioned above. Each landholder is entitled to hold two family- holdings, which comes to a total of 84 acres. All the three sharers are entitled together to hold 252 acres, whereas the total is only Ac. 51-09 gts They, therefore, prayed that the ownership of these survey numbers should not be transferred to the protected tenants.

(3.) The Asst. Collector passed an order on 15-2-1975 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. He stated that the petitioners failed to produce any valid documents to show that succession and mutation have been sanctioned in their names. In the village records, the lands still stood in the name of Antaiah and there was no mention of succession being granted to Vithal Rao son of Antaiah. He further held that the contention that they have sold away the lands to the protected tenants was also untenable, as no registered documents were produced in proof of the alienations. He therefore, confirmed the provisional list.