IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4425 of 2008 & 2169 of 2010 CRP.No.4425 of 2008 BETWEEN Dr. Amarkantha Raj Saxena and two others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. VEDULA VENAKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR GP FOR REVENUE CRP.No.2619 of 2010 BETWEEN Aluvala Bala Kistaiah and three others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector, RR District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. VEDULA VENAKATARAMANA GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Petitioners in CRP.No.4425 of 2008 are the landlords whereas the petitioners in CRP.No.2619 of 2010 claim as legal heirs of protected tenant. The subject matter of both these revision petitions is Sy.No.78 (old) corresponding to new Sy.Nos.32, 38 and 39 admeasuring Ac.33.14 guntas situated at Mansanpally village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. One late Raja Giridhar Raj Saxena was the original landlord, who is now represented by the petitioners in CRP.No.4425 of 2008. Similarly, one late Alwal Bala Goud was the original protected tenant, who is succeeded by his son and grandsons, who are petitioners in CRP.No.2619 of 2010. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as landlords and protected tenants (PT’s) 3. The revision petitions filed by both the parties arise under the following circumstances: (a) PTs approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East) Division, by making application dated 03.08.2005 contending that their ancestor late Alwal Bala Goud was the PT of the land to the extent of Ac.33.14 guntas and the said PT having died in 1974 was succeeded by his son and grandsons. It was alleged that as per the final list of PTs, he was entitled to ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). It was alleged that he was shown as PT for Ac.7.8 guntas but was granted ownership certificate for Ac.7.00 guntas only. It was alleged that as per the actual final list of tenancy register, the said Alwal Bala Goud was PT to the extent of Ac.40.00 guntas and as such, was entitled to ownership certificate for the entire extent but the same was given only to the extent of Ac.7.00 guntas and therefore, the said application was made by his son and grandsons for issuance of ownership certificate for balance extent of Ac.33.14 guntas. (b) On the said application, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer was called for, who appears to have confirmed the PTs allegations and thereafter, notices were issued to the landlords but the notices were not served on the ground that Giridhar Raj Saxena – original landlord died in 1985 and his legal heirs are said to be residing in America. Accordingly, notices were said to have been affixed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat and as nobody appeared on behalf of the landlords, the RDO referred to the report of the MRO and other records and granted ownership certificate to the PTs to the extent of Ac.33.34 guntas. (c) On coming to know of the said order, the landlords filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Several contentions were raised by the landlords, inter alia, that ownership certificate cannot be issued in installments on the ground that though PTs were granted to the extent of Ac.7.00 guntas earlier they have never questioned the said order claiming that they are entitled to additional extent of Ac.33.14 guntas. It was also contended that without preferring any appeal and after lapse of 35 years no such application is maintainable for grant of ownership certificate for additional extent. It was also claimed that no notice or information to the legal heirs of the original landlord was given as notice was not published in daily newspapers and as such, behind their back the ownership certificate was ordered to be issued. (d) The PTs contested the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the notices were duly served in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act and that the claim made in the application before the RDO is based upon the record of final tenancy register and as such, the order passed by the RDO was justified. Another important ground was raised by the PTs before the appellate authority that the entire village of Mansanpally along with another village Toopra was held to be Jagir village, which was abolished under Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Abolition of Jagir) Regulations 1358 Fasli on 28.09.1949 itself and that the Jagirdar i.e. landlords were granted commutation amount and thereby they have no subsisting interest or locus standi in objecting to the application of the PTs. 4. The appellate authority i.e. learned Joint Collector – I, Ranga Reddy District considered the said rival contentions and on the basis of the contention of the PTs that the entire village was taken over by the Government by abolition of Jagir, held that all the lands in the village vest in the Government. Learned Joint Collector also proceeded to hold that neither the original Jagirdar/landlord nor his legal heirs have any right over the property and the alienation made by them in favour of their General Power of Attorney, who was prosecuting the appeal on their behalf, had no subsisting legal right and the said agreement of sale – cum – GPA itself is void ab initio. In view of that finding, the learned Joint Collector set aside the ownership certificates issued to the PTs under Section 38-E of the Act both with respect to Ac.7.00 guntas granted earlier on 10.09.1975 as well as for Ac.33.34 guntas granted under the impugned order dated 14.02.2006 by the RDO and dismissed the appeal filed by the landlords on 30.08.2008. Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, the landlords have filed CRP.No.4425 of 2008 and aggrieved by the setting aside of both ownership certificates PTs have filed CRP.No.2619 of 2010. 5. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the landlords and Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the PTs. 6. Though elaborate arguments have been advanced by both the learned counsel in support of their respective claim, both sides agree that the learned Joint Collector committed error in adjudicating on the issue involved by assuming jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh (Abolition of Jagir) Regulations 1358 Fasli. It is contended that the learned Joint Collector was exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Act and the limited jurisdiction of the appellate authority was, therefore, to examine the correctness of the impugned order of the primary authority i.e. RDO dated 14.02.2006 by testing the same in accordance with the Act. 7. A look at the said order shows that the learned Joint Collector was impressed by G.O.Ms.No.878 Revenue Department dated 16.06.1965 placed before him by the PTs. The said GO was issued as clarification/guidance to the Collector, Hyderabad and Nazim Atiyat on their queries raised before the Government. The contents of the said GO refer to the orders of the Jagir Administrator treating the villages Mansanpalli and Toopra not as Jagirs but as Arazi Maqtas (also called Arazi-inam. - The land, the revenue of which is exempted in full or part and includes the Maqta and Agrahar) is void ab initio and gave a direction to the Collector and Jagir Administrator to take over the aforesaid villages under Jagir Abolition Regulation 1358 F. Learned Joint Collector clearly and apparently fell in error, in giving direction to the authorities under the Jagir Abolition Regulation with reference to exclusive jurisdiction of the hierarchy of authorities under the said Regulation, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The order of the learned Joint Collector does not discuss even a word with reference to the questions arising under Tenancy Act under which he was exercising appellate jurisdiction over the order of RDO. 8. Further the landlords had no opportunity to meet the said findings of the learned Joint Collector and it appears that the impugned order of the learned Joint Collector is based on a completely extraneous circumstance not arising out of and within his jurisdiction. The learned Joint Collector was required to adjudicate upon the appeal by examining the order of the RDO impugned before him to satisfy as to whether the grant of ownership certificate to the PTs was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, on the contrary, the learned Joint Collector, on the one hand, dismissed the appeal of the landlords without dealing with the reasoning or merits of the impugned order of the RDO and on the other hand, has also set aside the ownership certificates granted to the PTs to the extent of Ac.7.00 cents on 10.09.1975 as well as under the impugned order dated 14.02.2006 granted by the RDO. From the record, it is apparent that to the extent of earlier ownership certificate dated 10.09.1975 there was neither any contest nor controversy between the parties and the said certificate was not the subject matter of the appeal before the Joint Collector. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly unsustainable for more than one reason, as mentioned above. I am, therefore, constrained to set aside the said order and remit the appeal being Case No.F2/5034/2006 to the learned Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The learned Joint Collector shall give opportunity to both sides to enable them to raise all their contentions and deal with the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 23, 2011 DSK