IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 26826 of 1995 Between: 1 G.Ramaiah S/o G.Pedda Ramaiah Residents of Mal Village, Yachanram Mandal, R.R.District. 2 G.Yellaiah S/o G.Pedda Ramaiah Residents of Mal Village, Yachanram Mandal, R.R.District. 3 G.Chandraiah S/o G.Pedda Ramaiah Residents of Mal Village, Yachanram Mandal, R.R.District. 4 G.Jangaiah S/o G.Pedda Ramaiah Residents of Mal Village, Yachanram Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Reforms Tribunal, R.R.District, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Yachanram Mandal , R.R.District. 3 B.Rajender Reddy, S/o B.Kristha Reddy, Residents of Mall Village, Nallavelli Post, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District 4 Smt.Kausalya Bai, W/o B.Kristha Reddy, Residents of Mall Village, Nallavelli Post, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 herein in seeking to take possession of the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.522, and extentj of 4.00 acres of Mall Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District, purporting to act under the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act,1973 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of fundamental rights guranteed to them under Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms) Act, 1973 and issue a consequential order not to intefere with their possession and enjoyment over the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The substantive grievance in this writ petition filed in the year 1995, to which a counter-affidavit has at last been filed in June, 2009 by the 1st respondent, is that respondents 1 and 2 are seeking to take possession of the land of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.4-00 in Sy.No.522 of Mal village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 despite the fact that the petitioners are declared to be protected tenants and holders of a certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’). In the counter-affidavit, the 1st respondent asserts several facts including the chronology of events and proceedings under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act initiated on the basis of a declaration filed by the original owner B.Kista Reddy and B.Rajender Reddy whose legal representatives are respondents 3 and 4 herein. To the extent relevant and material, the 1st respondent’s counter asserts that since the petitioners are holders of certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the lands held by these petitioners should be deleted from the holding of the declarants as per the Act. The other lands of the declarants, of an extent of Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.522 have however been taken over pursuant to the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal dated 12-11-1994. The counter further asserts that the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, namely, the 2nd respondent had been instructed not to disturb the possession of the writ petitioners, as the Land Reforms Tribunal has no power to delete the above lands from the holding of the declarants in view of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal’s order. The approach of the 1st respondent is incomprehensible. On the one hand it states that in view of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the lands of the declarants including the lands in respect of which the petitioners have been granted protected tenancy certificate are to be taken over by the State as excess lands of the declarants and in the same breath the 1st respondent avers that the Mandal Revenue Officer had been instructed not to disturb the possession of the writ petitioners. In view of the above ambiguous stand on behalf of the official respondents as seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, no useful purpose is apparent in granting further adjournment for filing a coherent counter-affidavit. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioner and to forbear from making any attempt to dispossess the petitioners on the basis that in proceedings under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, the authorities had accepted surrender of lands specified by the declarants, without verifying whether the lands surrendered are in possession and enjoyment of protected tenants, i.e., the petitioners. Since the protected tenancy certificates are issued by Revenue authorities, it was incumbent for the authorities to have verified the revenue records to ascertain whether the lands surrendered under the provisions of the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act cannot be surrendered. The incoherence in Revenue administration has led to this piquant situation. On the above analysis, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed of their lands in Sy.No.522 of Mal village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the extent they have protected tenancy certificates issued under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act for the lands in question. The official respondents are however, at liberty to pursue appropriate administrative or quasi-judicial procedure for seeking correction of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal’s order. The writ petition is allowed with the observations as above. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 12th June, 2009. GRR