SATISH KUTUALLLY AIDED COOPERATIVE Vs. JOINT COLLECTORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which represents individual land owners who have purchased the lands/residential plots in Sy.Nos.246 to 249 of Bowrampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased the lands after certain agricultural land was laid out into plots in the year 1984, for which Panchayat approval was also given in the year 1984. There was a dispute between the original pattadar of the land Sri B.V.Prakash Reddy and his tenants. The said dispute was settled in terms of the Tenancy Act whereby 60% interest was given to the tenants and 40% interest was given to the landlord. An agreement was entered into between the tenants the landlord and some firms which entered into certain agreements with the tenants. Latter, registered General Power of Attorneys (GPA) were executed by the tenants and the heirs of Sri B.V.Prakash Reddy also. Pursuant to these GPAs, sale deeds were executed in favour of the individual plot owners. The plot owners are in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1984 and taxes are being collected from them. While this possession continued, without hearing the petitioners and without considering the ground reality, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has issued certificates under Sec. 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in favour of respondents 4 to 3 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners invoked the statutory remedies and challenged the same. However, the Joint Collector passed an order dated 003.2002 ignoring the facts on record and the law on the subject. Against the order of the Joint Collector dated 003.2002, the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 3 are the Joint Collector, RDO and MRO. Respondents 4 to 32 are the contesting respondents. Later, for some respondents their representatives were added. The present appeal is thus against 57 respondents. The respondents urged and argued that the order passed in their favour granting final certificates are legally valid and correct. They also urge that the society has no locus standi to file the application as the Tenancy Act only applies to the disputes pertaining to tenant and the landlord only. The society is neither a tenant nor a landlord. They also urged that in the civil suits filed by the appellants, an interim order was granted and was also vacated and that the individual plot owners are not in possession of the property. Therefore, it is urged that the revision filed is incorrect and not as per law. They also urged that the order passed by the Joint Collector is a correct and valid order. It is also strongly urged that the sale deeds which are executed in favour of the appellants within eight years of Dec., 1979 are also void in law. They urged that the actions taken by respondents 1 to 3 are perfectly correct. Therefore, they prayed that the revision should be dismissed.