TOOMOJU @ VADLA BHASKAR Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent in Proc.No.E/1785/2001, dated 06.03.2007, whereunder he directed the third respondent to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of land admeasuring 3-15 acres in Sy.No.140 and 6-95 acres in Sy.No.141, situated at Khairgaon Village, Rebbena Mandal, Adilabad District.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that one G.Venkata Rao was the pattedar of the subject lands. The grandfather of the petitioner by name Vadla Narayana was the protected tenant of the subject lands. The second respondent, after causing due enquiry, issued an ownership certificate under Sec. 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) TenancyAgricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, the Tenancy Act), holding that the grandfather of the petitioner is the deemed owner of the subject lands with effect from 01.01.1973. After the death of his grandfather, the revenue authorities implemented the ownership certificate in the name of his father by name Vadla Narsaiah. After the death of his father, when the petitioner and his brother intended to cultivate the subject lands, the fourth respondent restrained and threatened them. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed an application on 19.02005 before the first respondent for restoration of the possession of the subject lands. The first respondent forwarded the said representation to the third respondent vide letter dated 21.02005. After receipt of the said letter, the third respondent directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Rebbena-1, to handover the possession of the land to the holder of 38-E certificate with the help of the Mandal Surveyor under cover of a panchanama and Zimma Patrika. Even before issuing instructions by the first respondent to the third respondent, the fourth respondent had approached the first respondent and made a representation on 003.2005 stating that he had purchased the subject lands from original pattedar viz., G.Venkat Rao in the year 1967 and that they orally compromised with the father of the petitioner to share half of the land by each of the parties. In response to the letter issued by the first respondent, the third respondent submitted a report on 06.04.2005 requesting to issue necessary instructions to him to restore the possession of subject lands to the holder of 38-E certificate i.e., the father of the petitioner. In the month of Nov., 2002, the second respondent directed the third respondent to restore the possession of the subject lands to the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent, instead of issuing pattedar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 06.03.2007, directing the third respondent to mutate the ownership of the subject lands in the name of the fourth respondent and to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour.

(3.) Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the first respondent, without taking into consideration the fact that the grandfather of the petitioner was the protected tenant and he was issued 38-E Certificate by the second respondent, holding that he is the deemed owner of the subject lands with effect from 01.01.1973, has passed the impugned order without conducting any enquiry. The first respondent, while passing the impugned order, did not take into consideration the proviso under Sec. 38-E(2) of the Tenancy Act, which was added by the Act 2 of 1979 with effect from 11.01.1979, and hence the said is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sada Vs. Thaildar, Utnoor 1987(2) APLJ 397.