PRABHULINGAM Vs. Y RAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the appellant before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in case No.B4/12083/90 questioning the orders dt. 8-11-1994 by which the claim of the petitioner for the disputed land was rejected and the claim of the respondents for ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Tenancy Act") was upheld confirming the orders of the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer in Case No.LRW 327/75 dated 21-6-1975.

(2.) The respondents, who are the legal representatives of one Y. Yellaiah, claimed before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer for issuance of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act in their favour relating to the land in Sy.No.l of Sulthanpally village claiming as protected tenants relating to the said land. Their contention is that their father Yellaiah was a protected tenant relating to the said land; that the original owner of the land was one Syed Shabuddin Hussain; that their father had purchased the said land along with some other lands from the said original owner under a registered sale deed dated 25-8-1970 and acquired the ownership rights in that land; that after the death of their father, they alone are in possession and enjoyment of the said land and are entitled for issuance of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. The present petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Sivalingam, filed objection petition claiming ownership rights for the eastern half of Sy.No.l, the total extent of which is Ac.7-13 Gts., contending that there was a litigation between the father of the respondents and the original pattadar of the land Syed Shabuddin Hussain relating to the above said land; that his father had provided the required finance to the father of the respondents in prosecuting the said litigation; that in view of such assistance rendered by him, the father of the respondents agreed to sell the said land to his father; that after the father of the respondents succeeded in the litigation, disputes arose between his father and the father of the respondents; that in order to settle such dispute, a mediation was held by some elders and in that mediation, which was held in 1956, the father of the respondents agreed to give the eastern half of the disputed land to his father and he was also put in possession of the said land in pursuance of such mediation by the elders; that eversince 1956, his father and after his death, he alone are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the eastern half of the land in Sy.No.l in their own right; that he has also perfected his title to the said land by adverse possession and that the respondents are not entitled for the ownership certificate relating to the said land. He further contended before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer that the respondents herein had filed a civil suit in O.S. 10/71 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad West, seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the said land in Sy.No.l against him and the said suit was still pending before the said Civil Court and that, therefore, the question of issuing the ownership certificate to the respondents does not arise.

(3.) On the basis of the material placed before him, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West by orders dated 21-6-1975 rejected the claim of the petitioner for the disputed land and directed issue of ownership certificate relating to the entire extent in Sy.No.l in favour of the respondents holding that the respondents are the protected tenants in the land and that the petitioner is not the owner of any portion of the land in Sy.No.l Questioning such orders, the petitioner herein filed appeal before the Joint Collector, R.R. District, who dismissed the said appeal by orders dated 15-4-1980 in Case No.B4/16633/75, confirming the orders of the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer having come to the same conclusion that the petitioner is not the owner of any portion of Sy.No.l and that the respondents, who are the protected tenants, alone are entitled for issuance of ownership certificate. When the appeal was pending before the Joint Collector, R.R District, the suit O.S.10/71 was decreed by the trial Court on 29-9-1976. The petitioner herein, thereupon, filed appeal in A.S.No.253 / 76 and the said appeal was allowed on 18-10-1978 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the respondents. The Joint Collector observed in his Judgment that the Judgment in the civil suit is not a bar for proceeding under the Tenancy Act and granting the ownership certificate under 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Questioning the said orders of the Joint Collector, the petitioner herein filed C.R.P.No.5700/80 in this Court. The respondents had, in the meanwhile, filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.212/80 before the High Court questioning the Judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in A.S.253/76. This Court dismissed S.A.212/80 on 6-4-1987 thereby confirming the decree and Judgment of the appellate Court in A.S.No.253/76. On the same day, this Court allowed C.R.P.No.5700/80 in view of the Judgment in S.A.212/80 which confirmed the judgment of the appellate Court in A.S.253/76 and the matter was remanded to the Joint Collector, R.R. District for fresh disposal according to law in view of the judgment in S.A.212/80 which confirmed the judgment in A.S.253/76.