NATHI VENKAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners filed the present c. R. P. under Section 91 of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience), challenging the order dated 31. 3. 2001, made in Appeal File no. F2/934/99 on the file of the first respondent confirming the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act by the second respondent in favour of unofficial respondents in proceedings no. B/315/lre/75.

(2.) SRI L. Prabhakar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the ancestors of the revision petitioners late Nathi Chittaiah and others- late Sana Mallaiah and Yerrolla laxmaiah were in joint possession and enjoyment of lands in Survey Nos. 94 and 95 at Kompally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, ranga Reddy District, prior to 1950. The learned counsel also would maintain that these families were in joint possession and enjoyment of these lands in the year 1954-55, 1955-56, 1957-58, 1958-59 and by virtue of the provisions of the Act, these parties would become protected tenants and at any rate in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act, Sections 34 and 37 in particular, these parties to be taken as deemed protected tenants. The learned counsel also while elaborating his submissions, had taken this court through rules 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules, 1973') and would maintain that inasmuch as before the preparation of the provisional list, no notice had been served on these parties and rule 4 (2) of the said Rules had not been complied with. The counsel also would further maintain that no finding, in fact, had been recorded by the leaned Joint Collector, Ranga reddy District. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to section 2 (r) of the Act and further had carefully taken this court through the language employed in Sections 34, 37 and 38 of the Act as well and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the revision petitioners would fall under the expression "interested persons" when no notice was given and when the procedure contemplated by the Rules, 1973 had not been followed, the whole proceedings are vitiated, and on the strength of such documents, if any, recording certain vague findings and without recording specific findings relating to the deemed protected tenancy in the light of Section 37 of the Act definitely is bad in law. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel would maintain that when disturbance was caused, in fact, there was a cause of action'and that was the reason why immediately;the petitioners had initiated the necessary action and in the light of the explanation given by the petitioners, though question of limitation also was raised by the opposite party before the learned Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District, the learned joint Collector had not rejected the said appeal on the ground of limitation but had gone into merits, relying on certain documents recorded findings and placing reliance on such documents, resulting in no procedure had been followed as contemplated by the Rules, 1973, also cannot be sustained. The counsel also pointed out specifically the object of the Act and would maintain that it is not as though the appellate authority is not in custody of the relevant documents and when examining the relevant documents of the specified years by recording such findings dismissing the appeal cannot be sustained and hence it is a fit case for remand. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) PER contra, Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel had taken this Court through Rules 20, 24 and 24-A of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Land Rules, 1950 (for short 'the rules, 1950') and would maintain that in the light of the copy of the Final Tenancy register for the year 1950-51, relied upon by the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, the said findings cannot be found fault with. The learned senior counsel also would maintain that the date of certificate is 03-06-1975 and the appeal was filed in the year 1999. The learned senior counsel also pointed out to the grounds of appeal and the relief portion prayed for and would maintain that for the reasons best known, the revision petitioners had not challenged the certificate in controversy. The question of non-giving of opportunity or non-issuance of notice, these grounds cannot be permitted to be urged by the revision petitioners at this distance of time, after a long lapse of time about 24 years, since much water had flown in between. The learned senior counsel explained the series of events and would maintain that though appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation, the learned Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District, no doubt, referred to the same in the contentions advanced, but had not recorded any specific finding, but however, had gone into merits and may be the learned Joint Collector, ranga Reddy District, thought that disposing the matter on merits would be just and proper and hence without touching the question of limitation recorded reasons and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Hence, the learned senior counsel would maintain that this is not a fit case to be interfered with, especially while exercising revisional jurisdiction, even in the light of the language employed in section 91 of the Act. The learned Senior counsel also would comment that though certain findings had not been recorded relating to the question of limitation by the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, that ground also can be raised by the successful contesting respondents in the c. R. P. and on this ground alone, the C. R. P. is liable to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the relevant provisions of the Act, apart from the Rules already specified supra.