THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2741 of 2009 (Dated : 25-02-2011) Between: Utsav Agarwal and others ..Petitioners A n d Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2741 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed under Section 91 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 by the unsuccessful appellants before the Joint Collector, at Mahabubagar in an appeal filed under Section 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar, Farooq Nagar dated 18.7.2007 in File No.G/5996/2004 for restoration of possession to the legal heirs of protected tenants in respect of land bearing Survey No.103 (old) corresponding new Survey No.126 admeasuring Ac.8-00 at Solipur village of Farooq Nagar Mandal. 2. Respondents 3 to 7 herein filed an application under Section 32(1) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy& Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) before the Tahsildar, Farooq Nagar-2nd respondent seeking restoration of Ac.8-00 in Survey No.126 (old Survey No.103) of Solipur village. They claim that they are the legal heirs of the original protected tenant Pathlavath Hunya. More precisely, respondents 3 to 5 claim to be the sons and Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 claim to be daughter of original protected tenant Pathlavath Hunya. He cultivated the land during his life time and after his death, they cultivated the same. Thereafter, the pattedars forcibly dispossessed them from the said land. The land is presently in occupation of the petitioners herein, namely, Utsav Agarwal, Rajath Ragarwal and Siddartha Agarwal. Through the application before the Tahasildar, Farooq Nagar Mandal, they sought for restoration of the land. They enclosed certified copy of the protected tenancy extract, certified copy of the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and certified copy of the ROR for the year 1989-90 to their application filed before the Tahasildar, Farooq Nagar Mandal. 3. The petitioners herein, who are the respondents in the application before the Tahasildar, Farooqnagar Mandal filed counter. The counter filed by them, in brief, is as follows:- The applicants have no subsisting right in the subject properties since they have not produced any succession certificates issued by the competent civil Court declaring that they are the legal heirs of original protected tenant. Their predecessors-in-interest are the absolute owners and possessors and they are in enjoyment of the land in question for the last about two decades as owners and pattadars to the knowledge of the applicants and the M.R.O concerned. M/s.Heeraya and others earlier filed a case No.B/838/87 against one Yousuf Ali Khan and M.K.Agarwal under Section 32(1) of the Act claiming restoration of possession of the property. In the said proceedings, one Lakshmi W/o Adiya, Sankaram S/o Adiya were also impleaded. Subsequently, they withdrew their application stating that they wrongly initiated proceedings at the instigation of village patwari. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooq Nagar accepted their withdrawal on 2.9.1989. Therefore, the present proceedings are hit by the doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence. The predecessors-in- interest of the respondents purchased the subject agricultural lands through registered sale deeds for a valuable consideration. The applicants never complained to the M.R.O at any point of time claiming rights in the land or raised any objection. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds came to be issued to the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest in title after exhaustive and through enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Paras 16 and 17 of the counter need to be noted and they are thus:- “16. It is respectfully submitted that as per the A.P.ROR in Land and Pattadar Pass Books act, 1971 preparation and updating of Record of Rights in all lands stated soon after the enforcement of the Act and elaborate procedure is prescribed for conducting due enquiries before preparation of Record of Rights such as publication of notices in the District Gazettee, Receipt of claims in Form 1- A, preparation of register of claims, local enquiry in the village, passing of orders as to the changes in registers in respect of title, Split of Pattas where they are registered documents, enquiry into disputes and transfer of registers, preparation of draft record of rights, publication of notices in form III, calling for objections etc. in the District Gazettee and in the village also, holding of Gram Sabha, filing of objections, enquiry into objections, local enquiry in the village, Summary order, confirmation of draft of ROR, publication of final ROR, preparation of Pass Book, holding of Gram Sabha for delivery of Pass Books, preparation of title deeds and pass books and issue of Pass Book and title deeds etc., In this case also after exhausting the aforesaid elaborate procedure, Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds were issued to the respondents and their predecessors in title. 17. It s submitted that the ROR in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act imposes a duty on persons accruing rights such as succession, survivorship, inheritance etc., and they shall intimate within 90 days to the concerned MRO. Therefore, in the absence of the above mandatory provisions, the presumption of the correctness of the ROR shall prevail as envisaged under the Act. Thus, the respondents have become full owners and Pattadars of the subject lands and their title became unassailable. Therefore, the applicants did not file any objections, complaints, appeal or revision. It appears that some unscrupulous persons are interested in this litigation foisted against the respondents to make some unlawful gain. Some of the aides of the applicants herein have also filed another case in file No.G/5765/2004 and both the proceedings are nothing but collusive proceedings initiated without any right.” 4. The Tahasildar, Farooq Nagar Mandal-2nd respondent, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondents before him failed to produce any documents whereunder original protected tenant relinquished his tenancy rights over the land in question, and therefore, the applicants are entitled for restoration of possession of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the application filed by the legal heirs of original protected tenant namely Pathlavath Hunya under Section 32(1) of the Act came to be allowed, by an order dated 18.7.2007. The petitioners herein, who are the respondents before the Tahsildar, Farooq Nagar, filed an appeal under Section 90(1) of the Act assailing the order of restoration of the lands to the applicants. The petitioners contended before the appellate authority that the original protected tenant surrendered his tenancy rights over the land and the same was recorded in ROR 1979-80. Earlier proceedings initiated by some persons claiming to be legal heirs of original protected tenant ended in dismissal as withdrawn on 2.9.1989 and therefore, the present proceedings initiated by the applicants are not maintainable. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that withdrawal of the applicants filed by some other persons seeking recovery of restoration of possession does not in any way affect the applications filed by respondents 3 to 6 herein. The appellate authority also recorded a finding that after enforcement of the amending Section 19 (Act III of 1954) which came into force from 4.2.1954, the surrender by the protected tenant is required to be in writing and also to be admitted by the P.T in good faith before the Tahsildar. As the surrender is stated to be in the year 1974, and as the same is not evidenced in writing, the plea advanced by the appellants with regard to the surrender of tenancy rights by the original protected tenant cannot be accepted. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate authority, which reads as hereunder:- “ Perused the lower Court record. According to the order dated 18-07-2007 of the Tahasildar, Farooqnagar the appellants herein (Respondents in lower court case File No.G/5996/2004) have not produced any evidential documents regarding relinquishment of P.T rights by legal heirs of P.T over on Sy.No.103 (old) corresponding new Sy.No.126 of Sollipur village and the protected tenant was forcibly evicted by the land lords. According to amending Section 19 by Act III of 1954 which came into force on 04-02-1954, the surrender by the protected tenant is required to be in writing and also to be admitted by the P.T in good faith before the Tahsildar. If the surrender after 04-02-1954 does not satisfy this mandatory provision, the protected tenancy would not stand terminated and the P.T could recover back possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The appellants herein have not adduced any evidence to prove that the P.T had relinquished his rights during the year 1974 in writing and such relinquishment was ever accepted by the Tahsildar. In the absence of any proof, I am not inclined to convince with the contention of the appellants. The contention that the respondents No.2 to 6 have not filed any document much less a succession certificate to show that they are the legal heirs of late Hunya Lambada. The appellants did not choose to prove his contention by producing relevant documentary evidence, before this Court. The contention, therefore, discarded. The contention of the appellants that the petition filed by the respondents earlier for recovery of possession, subsequently withdrawn is not correct. According to the order dt.02.9.1989 of Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooq Nagar the appeal was filed by Sri Heerya S/o Hanmiya and 5 others but not the respondents herein and the petitioners in Case No.B1/838/87 are no way concerned to Sri Hunya P.T. In view of the above, I do not see any valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, upholding the order dated 18- 07-2007 passed by the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar in File No.G/5996/2004.” Hence, this revision by the unsuccessful appellants before the Joint Collector in an appeal under Section 90(1) of the Act. 5. Heard Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7. 6. Sri E.Manohar, learned senior counsel submits that late Shamshuddin Ali Khan was the original pattadar of total extent of land admeasuring Ac.48-21 gts. comprised in Survey No.126 admeasuring Ac.17.20 gts., Sy.No.127 admeasuring Ac.15.24 gts., and Sy.No.146 admeasuring Ac15.16 gts. He died in 1967. One Hari Singh was the lessee of the lands in the year 1979. On 17.10.1979, legal heirs of late Nawab Shamshuddin Ali Khan executed registered sale deed in favour of Hari Singh. It is stated in the sale deed that Hari Singh had been in possession of the land as a tenant as on 17.10.1979. The said Hari Singh executed a sale deed on 16.7.1980 in favour of M/s.Bangalore Rolling and Structurals Limited; a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of Survey No.126 admeasuring Ac.17.21 guntas. The 1st petitioner purchased Ac.9-09 gts., comprising Sy.No.125 of Sollipur village, Shadnagar Manda, Mahabubnagar District under sale deed dated 10.3.1989 executed by M/s. Bangalore Rolling and Structurals Limited. Petitioner No.2 Rajnath Agarwal purchased Ac.8-12 gts comprising Sy.No.126, Ac.11- 19 gts comprising Sy.No.127 under registered sale deed dated 9.3.1989 executed by M/s. Bangalore Rolling and Stucturals Limited. The petitioners obtained pattadar passbooks in respect of the lands purchased by them under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The original protected tenant surrendered his rights prior to 1954 since oral surrender was permissible prior to 4.2.1954 and after the surrender of the lands, one Hari Singh was inducted as a lessee and subsequently, the lessee himself purchased the land on 17.10.1979. 7. The learned senior counsel further submits that the application filed by the respondents 3 to 7 before the Tahasildar seeking restoration of possession is not maintainable since it is not filed within reasonable time and as the earlier application moved by another set of persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the protected tenant ended in dismissal as withdrawn. The respondents 3 to 7 remained silent when the title of the property has been passed on under registered sale deeds and their inaction all through for about two decades amounts to waiver of their right to seek restoration of possession. He would also submit that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds came to be issued in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority after following due procedure and the respondents 3 to 7 did not raise any objection in the proceedings under the provisions of Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 in which case, it is impermissible for respondents 3 to 7 to question the sale transactions evidenced by registered documents right from the year 1979 and seek restoration of the land claiming to be the legal heir of the protected tenant. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao v. Nallolla Pantaiah[1] and the decisions of our High Court in Bheemati Dawood v. Madichetty Rachaiah[2], Syed Abdul Majeed @ Mia Pasha v. Joint Collector-LL, Ranga Reddy District[3] and Omprakash Agarwal v. Joint Collector, Adilabad[4]. In Ponnala Narsing Rao’s case ( 1 supra), the Supreme Court observed that no express period of limitation is provided for filing petition under Section 32 of the Act and such applications have to be moved within reasonable time. For better appreciation, I may refer para 3 of the cited judgment and it reads as hereunder:- “SO far as the second contention is concerned, it is true that though no express period of limitation is provided for filing application under Section 32 of the Act, such applications have to be moved within reasonable time. It may be because of such belated applications, the other side may stand adversely affected. It may have changed its position in the meantime. Equities may have arisen in his favour, he may have spent large amounts on land by improving it. But all these questions have to be pleaded and proved. Surprisingly, no such contention was ever canvassed much less tried to be proved on any equitable ground by the petitioner. Therefore, this second contention on the facts of the present case cannot be sustained. It has also to be noted that no plea of adverse possession was put forward by the petitioner in support of his case. “ 8. In Bheemati Dawood’s case (2nd supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that the application under Section 32 of the Act cannot be maintained after thirty years of dispossession. Learned senior counsel laid much emphasis on paras 19 to 21 of the cited judgment and they read as hereunder:- “ ( 19 ) THE father of the petitioner was alive till the year 1984. He did not make any claim for the lands in the said survey numbers during his lifetime. While tenancy is a phenomenon brought about by operation of law, surrender comes into existence with specific acts of parties. If the person alleged to have surrendered the tenancy remains silent for more than two decades after such surrender, an inference as to its validity can necessarily be drawn. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to take exception to the surrender of tenancy by his father. Though it is alleged that the endorsement as to surrender of tenancy was made when the matter was pending before the Revenue Divisional officer, a perusal of the record discloses that the contention is without any basis. Once the tenancy was surrendered in accordance with Section 19 of the Act, it was not open to the petitioner to submit an application under Section 32 of the act. ( 20 ) IN Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor (supra) the Full Bench of this Court took the view that a tenant or his legal heir is entitled to be restored the possession of the land covered by the tenancy, irrespective of the date of dispossession. Section 32 applies to non-protected and protected tenancies. The plea of adverse possession against the tenants of any category, was held to be not available. In a way, it was indicated that there is no time limit for seeking restoration of possession under section 32. Recently, the Supreme Court struck a different note on this aspect, mostly on the grounds of estoppel and acquisance. In Ponnala Narsing Rao v, nallolla Pantaiah (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "so far as the second contention is concerned, it is true that though no express period of limitation is provided for filing application under Section 32 of the Act, such applications have to be moved within reasonable time. It may be because of such belated applications, the other side may stand adversely affected. It may have changed its position in the meantime. Equities may have arisen in his" favour, he may have spent large amounts on land by improving it. ( 21 ) IN the present case, the petitioner did not plead as to when his or his father dispossessed. The entries in the Kasara pahani for the years 1954-55 discloses that the 1st respondent was in possession of the land. Though the father of the petitioner was shown as protected tenant, his tenancy was surrendered in the year 1963. The application is made for the first time by the petitioner in the year 1994. The 1st respondent exercised the rights of absolute ownership at least from 1963. He surrendered the land from other survey numbers equivalent extent in these survey numbers under the Ceiling Act. It is categorically pleaded that he has developed the land by incurring huge expenditure. The factors indicated by the Supreme Court to reject a belated application under Section 32 of the Act are clearly established in this case through record.” 9. In Syed Abdul Majeed’s case ( 3rd supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the question as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant has to be decided by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 10. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 submits that for maintaining an application under Section 32 of the Act by the legal heirs of the protected tenant, succession certificate is not required. The plea of adverse possession is not available to the opposite party in an application moved by the legal heirs of protected tenant under Section 32 of the Act seeking restoration of the land. The petitioners have not pleaded in the counter before the primary authority with regard to the withdrawal of the application filed by one set of persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the protected tenant. Even otherwise, the earlier application filed by Heeriah and others claiming to be the legal heirs of Hanmiah, a protected tenant, was in respect of Sy.No.127 and not in respect of Sy.No.126. Therefore, withdrawal of the application by Heeraiah and others does not in any way effect the application filed by respondents 3 to 7 before the primary authority seeking restoration of the land bearing Sy.No.126. Learned senior counsel refers paras 1 and 2 of the petition filed by Heeriah and others before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooq Nagar (shad nagar), which reads as hereunder:- “ That late Huniah S/o Dupla who was a protected tenant of the land admeasuring 8-00acres out of old Sy.No.103 corresponding to new 126 and these petitioners are not at all the legal heirs of late Huniah and these petitioners are not at all concerned with this land. 2) That the father of the petitioners No.1 to 3 by name Hanmiah S/o Surya was the protected tenant of the lands admeasuring 8-00 acres out of Sy.No.103 corresponding to the present Sy.No.127 and of the land of 10-00 acres out of old Sy.No.104 and present Sy.No.146 both situated at Solipur and in the life time of our father in the year 1953 he with his own free will orally surrendered his protected tenancy rights in favour of the land holder late Shamsuddin Ali Khan and he also gave the possession of these lands to late Shamshuddin Ali Khan and since the beginning of the year 1994, the previous land holder in possession and enjoyment of these land. These petitioners have filed a case u/Sec 32(1) of the Tenancy Act on the wrong advise given by the Ex. village patwari suppressing the real fact of previous oral surrender made by our late father Hanmaiah in favour of the land holder”. 11. Learned senior counsel would contend that oral surrender is impermissible after 4.2.1954 in which case, surrender of the lands pleaded by the petitioners herein in the year 1974 cannot be treated as valid surrender and in which case, the rights of the legal heirs of the protected tenant to seek restoration of the lands are in no way hampered. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- 1) Venkanna v. Pichikuntal Buchamma[5] 2) J.Janga Reddy v. G.Raghupathi Rao[6] 3) Sada v. The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District [7] 4) Kotaiah v. Property Association of the Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd.[8] 5) Madipeddi Rajalingam v. Rudroju Chinna Somaiah[9] 6) Mir Sadat Ali v Joint Collector, R.R.District [10] 7) Pushpa Patel Chavda v. M.R.O,Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District[11] 8) Edukanti Kistamma (died) through L.Rs v. S.Venkat Reddy (died) through L.Rs[12] 12. The Supreme Court in Edukanti Kistamma’s case (12 supra) held that transfer of tenanted property contrary to Section 47 of the Act is void ab initio. The Scheme of the Act provides that the 1950 Act being a beneficial legislation requires interpretation to advance social and economic justice and enforce the constitutional directives and not to deprive a person of his right to property. The statutory provisions should not be construed in favour of such deprivation. Interpretation of a beneficial legislation with a narrow pedantic approach is not justified. In case of there being any doubt, the court should interpret a beneficial legislation in favour of the beneficiaries and not otherwise as it would be against the legislative intent. For the purpose of interpretation of a statute, the Act is to be read in its entirety. The purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying the principles of purposive construction. The Court must be strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute’s utility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as to make it effective and operative and to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. The Court has the duty to construe the statute to promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and should not efface its very purpose. 13. In Sada v. The Tahsildar’s case ( 7 supra), a Full Bench of this Court held that after the amendment on 4-2-1954 the surrender by the tenant (or protected tenant) was required to be in writing and also to be admitted by the tenant in good faith before the Tahsildar. If the surrender, after 4-2-54, did not satisfy these mandatory provisions, the protected tenancy did not stand terminated and the protected tenant could recover back possession under Section 32, even if he had been dispossessed without force. 14. In reply, Sri E.Manohar, learned senior counsel submits that the respondents 3 to 7 in their application before the 2nd respondent did not choose to implead the land holders and in the absence of the land holders, there could not be effective adjudication as to whether the original protected tenant voluntarily surrendered or whether it is a case of abandonment since the original protected tenant died few decades prior to the respondents 3 to 7 filing their application before the 2nd respondent seeking restoration of possession and more so, when the registered document placed on record indicate that