Sukka Mutyalu vs Joint Collectori,

WP.No.2486 of 2013 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of the impugned proceedings in file No.F2/963/2011 dated 05.01.2023 on the file of the respondent No.1 as being contrary to the provisions of the AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, bad in law, illegal and set aside the same and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 in file No.B/3609/2003 dated 21.03.2017 in respect of the lands situated in Sy.No.69 (Ac.3.25 guntas), Sy.No.70/1 (Ac.3.03 guntas), Sy.No.71/1 (Ac.3.03 guntas) and Sy.No.75 (Ac.1.00 guntas) of Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

WP.No.14730 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the demolition order or direction in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.69 (Ac.3.25 guntas), Sy.No.70/1 (Ac.3.03 guntas), Sy.No.71/1 (Ac.3.03 guntas) and Sy.No.75 (Ac.1.00 guntas) of Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

WP.No.2486 of 2013:

The subject matter in both these writ petitions is one and the same and the petitioner No.3 sailing with other petitioners in WP.No.2486 of 2013 is the petitioner in WP.No.14730 of 2020. Thus, in view of the same, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

The case of the petitioners in WP.No.2486 of 2013 is that they are the legal heirs of the original protected tenant, Late Sukka Swamy, in respect of the lands in Sy.No.69 admeasuring Ac.3.25 guntas, Sy.No.70/1 admeasuring Ac.3.03 guntas, Sy.No.71/1 admeasuring Ac.3.03 guntas and Sy.No.75 admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas of Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They approached the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, for issuance of succession certificate and restoration of possession under Sections 40 and 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). The said application was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.B/3609/2023 dated 21.03.2007. The petitioners preferred an appeal challenging the said dismissal order before the respondent No.1 vide Case No.F2/963/2011. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 05.01.2013.

It is stated that in WP.No.35611 of 2012 filed by the petitioners, this Court passed order dated 20.11.2012 directing the respondent No.1 (appellate authority) to hear all the parties on 22.12.2012 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules within a period of two months from the date of the order. However, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated

01.2013 without considering the grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioners before the lower authority. The respondent No.1, under the impugned order, erroneously advised the petitioners to approach civil Court. The civil Courts are completely ousted of jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Act. Taking undue advantage of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, the unofficial respondents came to subject land on 28.01.2013 with JCBs and bulldozers to level the land and tried to dispossess the petitioners. The unofficial respondents with the connivance of the Police, Hayathnagar Police Station, got booked a case against the petitioners in Cr.No.55 of 2013 under Section 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It is stated that the petitioners are socially and economically poor persons and they cannot afford to safeguard their rights unless the Court intervenes in this matter and comes to their rescue. The impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The respondent No.1 is duty bound to protect lawful rights of the petitioner, who are the PTs/successors of PTs.

WP.No.14730 of 2020:

The averments made in WP.No.2486 of 2013 are similar in this writ petition as well. It is further stated that taking advantage of Covid situation, the unofficial respondents have raised structures over the subject land and thus, the petitioner sought for direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the structures raised by the unofficial respondents.

Common counter affidavit is filed by the respondents No.5 and 31 and respondents No.6, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 28 and separate counter is filed by respondent No.29 in WP.No.2486 of 2013. Common counter affidavit is filed by the respondents No.7, 12, 19 and 23 and respondents No.7 and 23 in WP.No.14730 of 2020. In the counter affidavits, inter alia, it is stated that the land admeasuring Ac.23.19 guntas in Sy.Nos.69, 70, 71/1, 71/2 and 75 of Hayathnagar Mandal was purchased by one S. Bala Kusuma, vide sale deed dated 03.12.1965 from Sri Nawab Syed Janbaz Ali Khan and another, by taking permission dated 12.03.1965 as required under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act. After purchase of the property, the same was converted into house plots under permission of Gram Panchayat. The plots were sold to various individuals from 1978. The land has been converted to non-agricultural purpose in the year 1978 and the subject area falls within the urban area and the provisions of the Act have no application. That after a period of more than 25 years, the petitioners are claiming to be land owners. The original PTs filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking succession, which was rejected by order dated 21.03.2007 and the appeal filed before the Joint Collector in File No.F2/963/2011 was also rejected vide order dated 05.01.2013.

It is further stated that the original PT relinquished his right by surrendering tenancy in file No.E1/3269/63 dated 04.06.1963 and by suppressing the said fact, the petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs, filed succession/restoration application under Section 40 read with Section 32 of the Act, after lapse of 45 years of relinquishment.

Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that relinquishment/surrender dated 04.06.1963 of the original protected tenant, Sukka Swamy, was not challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners have suppressed the aforesaid fact before the lower tribunals and this Court. In any case, the application for restoration of possession after 45 years is not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in PONNALA NARSING RAO v. NALLOLLA PANTAIAH (1998) 9 SCC 183.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged surrender of tenancy under Section 19 of the Act vide order dated 04.06.1963 in File No.E1/3269/1963 by Sukku Swamy is illegal. The said Sukku Swamy died due to old age. He was totally bed-ridden in the year 1960 and he died on 9.05.1960 and the question of relinquishing his tenancy rights on 4.06.1963 does not arise.

Heard Mr. Ch. Buchi Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Mr. S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.10 in WP.No.2496 of 2013, Mr. K. Antony Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.7, 10, 12, 19 and 23 in WP.No.14730 of 2020 and respondent No.12 in WP.No.2486 of 2013 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

I have perused the endorsement filed along with the counter affidavit of the respondent No.29 in WP.No.2486 of 2013 wherein it was recorded that Sukku Swamy S/o.Rama (protected tenant) has relinquished his rights of lease of tenancy in Sy.Nos.69, 70, 71 and 75 of Tatti Anaram Village in File No.E1/3469/63. According to the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, based on such relinquishment and endorsement, the name of the PT was rounded off in all relevant registers including the PT register. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As seen from the reply affidavit, the fact of relinquishment is to the knowledge of the petitioners. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sukku Swamy died on 09.05.1960 and surrender of tenancy on 04.06.1963 is not correct, there is no evidence to that effect. Further, if any illegality in surrender of tenancy rights is alleged, the same needs to be challenged by the petitioner. The fact remains that the surrender/relinquishment of tenancy rights has attained finality.

In any case, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry when there are disputed questions of act. The petitioners have not taken any steps to challenge the surrender of tenancy/relinquishment dated 04.06.1963 in File No.E1/3469/63. It is not in dispute that after 45 years of surrender/relinquishment of tenancy rights, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 40 read with Section 32 of the Act for succession/restoration of possession of the subject land. The delay is not explained. Further, in the impugned orders passed by the respondents No.1 and 2, it was observed that the land was converted to non-agricultural usage and constructions have come up and the land is no more agricultural land. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court in VORLA RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. JOINT COLLECTOR I, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT 2021 SCC OnLine TS 703 = (2021) 4 ALT 305 (DB) held as under:

“30. … Though there is no exact time mentioned by the appellants/petitioners as to when were they dispossessed, even going by the admitted facts, as stated in the writ affidavit that the tenants viz. Vorla Ramachandra Reddy had expired in 1979 and Dudigalla Mallaiah in the year 1975, there is clearly an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two decades in filing an application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, in the year 2001. The protected tenants have slept over their rights for over two decades and having acquiesced to the change of ownership of the land from the original landlords to Chindham Durgaiah and Doddi Komaraiah in the year 1952 and to the transfer of title to the subsequent purchasers from time to time and later, to the conversion of the land into plots from the year 1982 onwards, the appellants/petitioners cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Tenancy Act.”

The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In view of the above observations, there are no merits in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.