SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking to call for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 30.06.2021 on the file of respondent No.2 as made in Old Case No.F3/74052007-F3/83/ROR/2007 confirming its own order dated 01.02.2021 reversing the order of the respondent No.4 in File No.A3/2967/2007 dated 20.06.2007 and quash the same as illegal and illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that one Kashinath Rao, the vendor of the petitioners, has succeeded the estate of Late Vitta Bai, being her adopted son. Said Vitta Bai, during her life time, has filed O.S. No.2 of 1969 before the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy, seeking to declare her as the legal heir of late Bheem Rao, for recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of the lands in survey Nos.1, 4, 10 and 28 of Cheemalpad Village of Kangti Mandal, against the father of respondent No.7 herein and another and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.1970. Aggrieved by the same, the father of respondent No.7 herein filed an appeal being A.S. No.516 of 1970 and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.1972. Questioning the same, again the father of respondent No.7 preferred Letters Patent Appeal in LPA No.216 of 1972, which was also dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.1973. Pursuant to the same, possession of the subject lands was delivered by the trial Court in execution proceedings. While so, the tenants of these lands viz., M. Pentaiah and other, claiming themselves to be the protected tenants through Mr. Kashinath Rao filed suit for recovery of amount in pursuance to the acquisition of the lands to the tune of Rs.28,776.80/- in O.S. No.38/1980 and the said suit was partly decreed by declaring their rights and entitlement of compensation at 60% vide judgment and decree dated 30.12.1982. It is the specific case of the petitioners that said Kashinath Rao sold land admeasuring Acs.4-25 guntas to petitioner No.1 and Acs.4-25 guntas to petitioner No.2 in survey No.10 of Chimalpad Village, Kanthi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, on 19.07.2007 through a registered sale deed. Further, on 05.06.2007, said Kashinath Rao filed an application before respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) seeking to amend the entries in revenue records in terms of the Civil Court decrees, referred to above. After examining the matter, vide order dated 20.06.2007 respondent No.4 directed the respondent No.5-Tahsildar (MRO) to mutate the name of Kashinath Rao in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2007 passed by respondent No.4, respondents 6 to 9 herein filed a revision under Section 9 of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act in respect of the land in survey No.10 before the Joint Collector. Consequent to establishment of Special Tribunals, the case was transferred to respondent No.2-Special Tribunal. Vide order dated 01.02.2021, the Tribunal has allowed the revision filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9. Subsequent to the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in WP (PIL) No.20 of 2021, dated 18.03.2021, petitioners have made a representation seeking to reopen the matter and reconsider the order dated 01.02.2021. Consequently, the Special Tribunal has reopened the matter and passed order dated 30.06.2021 confirming the earlier order dated 01.02.2021. Seeking to set aside the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 9 filed a counter affidavit mainly contending that by virtue of The Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'Tenancy Act ') which came into force from 1950, one Sri Narayana S/o.Ramanna and Sri Doulya S/o.Poshiga were declared as protected tenants. Thereafter under the provision of Section 38-E, they were granted ownership rights in respect of the land in survey No.10 to the extent of Acs.9-14 guntas each and the certificate was conferred upon them by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, vide file No.B1/1311/74, the said order was affirmed by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, in file No.C3/116/1982 vide order dated 10.05.1983, and the said order has become final. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.9-14 guntas in survey No.10 from the legal heirs of Vadla Narayana under registered sale deeds dated 03.01.1994. Further, the inherited rights were devolved upon respondent Nos.8 and 9 and others, who are the legal heirs of Perrappa, the son of one of the protected tenant viz., Doulya. It is further averred that the names of the unofficial respondents were mutated in the revenue records. It is further contended that the RDO without taking note of the fact that the protected tenants have been conferred the absolute rights w.e.f.01.01.1973 under Section 38-E has directed the MRO to implement the judgment of the civil Court after a long lapse of more than 25 years from the date of decree. Hence, it is stated that the purchase of the land admeasuring Acs.9-10 guntas by the writ petitioners, based on such wrong entries, have no validity. Further, the revenue authorities have failed to see that subject survey No.10 is not covered by O.S. No.38 of 1980 and the writ petitioners nor their vendor/s were ever in possession of the subject property and the possession was always with these respondents and their predecessors. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.