THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1718 of 2010 (Dated : 07-02-2011) Between: Smt. Midtha Jangamma W/o late Pentaiah and others …Petitioners A n d Midtha Ramchandraiah and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1718 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 26.02.2010 passed in Case No.F1/01/2009 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioners herein assailing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in Case No.K/1064/98 ended in dismissal. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioners are:- Midtha Chinnaiah and Midtha Ramaiah were real brothers. Chinnaiah has a son by name Kishtaiah and Midtha Ramaiah has a son by name Midtha Pentaiah. Midtha Pentaiah filed petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar under Rule 3 of Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction Rules 1956) read with Section 37-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 for correction of entries in the final record of Tenancy for inclusion of their names in the protected tenancy certificate standing in the name of Midtha Kishtaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.54 and 55 admeasuring Ac.5-34 guntas and Ac.8-17 guntas. Pending enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kishtaiah died and his son Ramachandraiah came on record as his legal representative. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 20.5.1999 dismissed the application. Midtha Pentaiah also died and his legal representatives, who are petitioners herein filed an appeal under Section 90(1) of A.P (TA) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 read with Rule 3 of the Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules, 1956 and 37-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.5.2007. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.2111 of 2008. The said C.R.P came to be allowed remanding the case to the appellate authority, by order dated 23.10.2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ Though several grounds in elaboration had been raised, a cryptic order had been made by the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. However, inasmuch as the reasons in detail had not been recorded, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to other merits and demerits of the matter. But however, the counsel for revision petitioners placed strong reliance on Sections 19 and 40 of the Act. In the light of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, to give opportunity to both the parties, hear the parties and pass appropriate orders, especially, keeping in view the provisions of the Act in general and Sections 19 and 40 of the Act in particular”. 3. On remand, the appellate authority heard both the parties and dismissed the appeal reserving liberty to the parties to seek declaration of their rights over the property by approaching appropriate civil Court. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as hereunder:- “ The matter has been examined with reference to material available on record, also material submitted by the Counsel for the appellant and arguments put forth by the Counsel for the Appellant. The appellants plea for inclusion of his father name in P.T.Register has no merit and valid reason at this point of time in the light of the Rule (3) of the Tenancy Records (Corrections) Rules, 1956. The petition seeks the title declaration over their ancestors property which was acquired by their earlier generation i.e., their father. It is for the applicant/appellant to establish their legal entitlement over the lands under claim by way of filing civil suit at appropriate forum to establish firstly they are also entitled for suit schedule property and determination of the extent of their share. The provision of the Section 19 deals with termination of tenancy and Section 40 deals with Rights of Protected Tenant heritability under AP(TA) Telangana Lands & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is the petitioner father who was stated to be cultivating the suit lands along with his brother who was declared as P.T at the time of preparation of Tenancy final list. Rule 24(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Rules provides that any person aggrieved by the entries made in the Final Tenancy Records shall file appliation before the Tahsildar at any time before 10.6.1952 requesting to amend the entries made in the Final Tenancy Records. The appellant could have hesitate/protest the entry of the final P.T.Register, at appropriate time. Any ignorance under law is not an excuse to take action at belated stage, i.e., after a period (50) years in this forum where a specific time frame was envisaged for filing claim seeking correction of entries under the Act and Rule. The appellants are at liberty to seek redressal of their matter for title declaration in an appropriate civil Court for their entitlement and share of the suit property as it has already been declared as Patta land by way of issuing 38-E certificate in favour of Respondents, but not appropriate seeking correction rather to say that inclusion of name under the Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules 1956. The lower Court has rightly held the judgment taking the citation of Hon’ble High Court (similar nature case of P.Balaiah vs. Venkat Rao 1974(2) An.W.R.328 , 1974(1) APLJ 67(SN), 1974 APHN 156) held that once a certificate is issued after following the procedure it becomes final and cannot be modified under the rules and dismissed the petition inserting the name of the petitioner in the final tenancy record. Further the appellants have not produced any evidential documents that they are the LRs of so called P.T ., much less a succession certificate to show that they are the legal heirs and their title declaration over the suit schedule property. The appellants did not produce to choose to prove their contentions by producing relevant documentary evidence before this Court. In the absence of any proof I am not inclined to convince with the contentions of the appellants. More so the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in a recent ruling reported in 2006(5) ALD 348, held that Revenue Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the legal heir ship of a deceased P.T. The succession certificate from the competent Court of law is mandatory to treat them as legal heirs of the P.T and allow them to enjoy the P.T rights. In view of the above observations I am not inclined to uphold the orders of lower Court. The parties are at liberty to fight for their entitlement of the suit schedule property at appropriate civil forum seeking redressal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly”. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 05.07.2010. Petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 1st respondent by registered post acknowledgment. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notice and filed proof of service. Notice to other respondents is stated to be not necessary. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appeared for the 1st respondent. perused the order impugned in the revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that application before the primary authority for inclusion of their names in the P.T certificate is maintainable when once the certificate is issued for the benefit of the joint family. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Govind Rao, Joint Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others[1], wherein it has been held that possession of a coparcener of joint Hindu Family property be deemed to be constructive possession of other coparceners in view of their status as co-sharers and merely because a Manager of Joint Hindu Family or a coparcener is found to be in possession of joint family property, the rights of other coparceners therein cannot be defeated under the law of succession. 7. As stated supra, the petitioners are claiming property as lenial descendants of Midtha Pentaiah. The said Midtha Pentaiah filed petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer alleging that Chinnaiah and Ramaiah are own brothers and he is the son of Midhtha Ramaiah and whereas Kishtaiah is the son of Midtha Chinnaiah. Midtha Pentaiah approached competent authority under Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction Rules 1956). His application came to be allowed and Section 38(E) certificate came to be issued in his favour about 50 years ago. Whether the certificate is issued for the benefit of the Kishtaiah’s family alone or for the benefit of family of Pentaiah is in controversy. The appellate authority, having taken note of the serious issue involved, directed the parties to establish their rights in a civil Court. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not see any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of revisional powers conferred under Section 91 of A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.07-02-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1718 of 2010 (Dated : 07-02-2011) [1] 2010(6) ALT 248