IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.9 OF 2002 Date:31.03.2011 Between:- R.Pratap Reddy and others ..Petitioners And P.Swaroopa Reddy and others .. Respondents ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against Proceedings No.F2/4104/99, dated 24-11-2001, of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District wherein appeal filed under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed confirming Proceedings No.A/119/92, dated 19-08-1996, of the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short, ‘M.R.O.’), Uppal upholding the claim of the respondents 1 to 7 for grant of succession of protected tenancy rights under Section 40 of the Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners are the land owners in respect of the subject lands situate in survey Nos.34 to 37 and 795 situate at Uppal Kalan village and that one Panga Narsaiah is the protected tenant. It is also not disputed that Panga Narsaiah died long back. According to the petitioners, Panga Narsaiah died issueless and therefore, the protected tenancy rights in respect of the schedule land got extinguished and the rights of the landlords got revived. 4. The respondents 1 to 7 filed an application under Section 40(1) of the Act before the M.R.O. claiming that Panga Narsaiah had four brothers by name Rajaiah, Mallaiah, Kishtaiah and Durgaiah and they were all members of a joint family cultivating the subject lands jointly and after the death of Panga Narsaiah and also his brothers, the respondents 1 to 7 herein became the protected tenants in respect of the lands and therefore, they are entitled for grant of succession under Section 40 of the Act. It is stated that notice of the said application was issued to the petitioners/landlords. According to the petitioners, they filed their objections before the M.R.O. on 30-09-1992. The petitioners contend that the M.R.O., without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and without even considering their objections, has passed an order on 19- 08-1996 upholding the claim of the respondents 1 to 7 for grant of succession. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Joint Collector dismissed the said appeal observing that the name of Panga Narsaiah was recorded against survey Nos.34 to 37 and 795 of Uppal Kalan village and other members of the joint family had also protected tenancy rights over the said lands and the M.R.O., after conducting an enquiry, has granted succession in favour of the respondents 1 to 7 herein who were lineal descendants of original protected tenant Panga Narsaiah. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by petitioners, who are the landlords. 5. The order dated 19-08-1996 passed by the M.R.O does not even refer to the fact that objections were filed by the petitioners herein on 30-09-1992. The said order does not also reflect any application of mind by the M.R.O. to the said objections filed by the petitioners. The said order does not also disclose that any notice intimating the date of hearing was served on the petitioners and that they failed to attend the enquiry. There is absolutely no reference to the objections filed by the petitioners in the said orders showing that they were considered and rejected. The order of the M.R.O. does not also disclose the nature of the enquiry conducted and what material was placed before the M.R.O. by the respondents 1 to 7 herein in support of claim of their succession and how the same was accepted as proving their claim. Except baldly stating that on verification of records and enquiry, it is evident that the name of Panga Narsaiah was recorded as protected tenant in respect of the subject lands and that he has got four brothers having rights of protected tenancy, being joint family members, the order of the M.R.O. does not disclose as to the basis on which the said finding that the four brothers of Panga Narsaiah were also members of the joint family along with Panga Narsaiah and all the brothers were having protected tenancy rights, came to be recorded. The order of the M.R.O. does not reflect due application of judicial mind expected of a quasi-judicial authority discharging a statutory function under the Act. 6. The impugned order of the Joint Collector refers to the objection petition filed by the petitioners before the M.R.O. The very contention of the petitioners before the Joint Collector was that no opportunity of hearing was given to them and no enquiry was conducted and their objections were not considered. The Joint Collector also did not appear to have applied judicial mind on the said aspect and simply endorsed the finding of the M.R.O. by observing that the other members of the joint family members have also protected tenancy rights over the said lands and the M.R.O., after conducting an enquiry, has granted succession in favour of the respondents therein, who are the lineal descendants of original protected tenant late Panga Narsaiah. The impugned order of the Joint Collector also does not disclose the basis even for the finding that the four brothers of Panga Narsaiah were members of the joint family along with Panga Narsaiah and that all the members of the joint family were protected tenants when admittedly, the records disclose the name of Panga Narsaiah alone. The order of the Joint Collector endorsed the enquiry conducted by the M.R.O. without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners herein questioning the claim of the respondents 1 to 7 as lineal descendants of the original protected tenant Panga Narsaiah. As the impugned orders of the M.R.O. and Joint Collector lack application of judicial mind and the said orders were passed without conducting a proper enquiry, as required under the statute, and without considering the objections filed by the petitioners herein, it is held that the impugned orders of the M.R.O. and the Joint Collector are unsustainable and they are accordingly set aside. 7. It is stated that respondents 9 and 10, who were impleaded in the present Civil Revision Petition by order, dated 19-03-2008, in C.M.P.No.551 of 2008 claiming to be the daughters of Panga Narsaiah have filed a separate application before the M.R.O. under Section 41 of the Act for grant of succession in their favour as sole lineal descendants of Panga Narsaiah and that the said application is pending enquiry before the M.R.O. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper that the matter is remitted back to the M.R.O., Uppal for a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The M.R.O. is directed to issue notice of hearing to both sides and give them an opportunity to adduce evidence and pass an order, in accordance with law, duly considering the objections filed by the petitioners herein. Having regard to the fact that the original application was filed in the year 1992, the M.R.O. is directed to pass the orders within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinafter. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​____________________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 31st March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.9 OF 2002 Date:31.03.2011 AMD