HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.Nos.727 and 1028 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the judgment in O.P.No.967 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy dated 15.09.1999. A.S.No.727 of 2000 is at the instance of the 3rd claimant therein while A.S.No.1028 of 2000 is at the instance of the 4th claimant therein. The factual back ground for the appeals is that the reference was made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication of the conflicting claims of title by the different claimants in respect of the acquired land of Acs.8.23 guntas in S.No.80 of Itkepally village. The land acquired was notified in the name of Vittalreddy, S/o Manik Reddy and Nagireddy, S/o Manik Reddy/claimants 1 and 2, but among the other claimants, the 3rd claimant claimed 1/5th share in the acquired land, while the 4th claimant claiming 1/5th share deposed about settling the dispute with the notified owners agreeing to receive a sum of Rs.8,000/-. The six other claimants were stated to be the legal representatives of the original pattadars claiming 40% of the compensation and they claimed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in this regard to be pending. The reference Court received the claim statements from claimants 1 and 2 who stated that Divisional Engineer, Sangareddy issued a certificate under Section 38 E of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) in their favour and, thereafter, the land was mutated in their names. After the certificate became final, no other claimant is entitled to receive any portion of the compensation. The 3rd claimant claimed that after the death of their father about 25 years earlier, she, her two other sisters and the other legal heirs of her father on record as claimants succeeded to the properties and they are entitled to their respective shares of the self-acquired property of their father. She claimed 1/5th share in the acquired land. Claimants 5 to 10 reiterated that the original tenant did not acquire any ownership and the validity of Section 38 E certificate is questioned. During the pendency of the reference, claimants 11 to 15 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 7th claimant and claimants 16 to 20 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 9th claimant. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined the 2nd claimant as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and no evidence was adduced on behalf of other claimants. The reference Court rendered the impugned award noting that PW.1 claimed the Land Acquisition Officer to have taken possession of the land from him and his elder brother. PW.1 was stated to have deposed about the grant of Section 38 E certificate under Ex.A.1 and entry of their names as owners and possessors in Ex.A.2 faisal patti and Exs.A.3 to A.8 certified copies of pahanis. The reference Court also noted about the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in Ex.A.9 and opined that when none of the other claimants adduced any oral evidence or filed any documents to show their ownership and possession, claimants 1 and 2 are alone entitled to receive any compensation in equal shares. The reference was answered accordingly. Claimants 3 and 4 in their respective appeals contended that the reference Judge should have noted that the appellants being daughters of the original protected tenant, are entitled to 1/5th share each in the compensation. They claimed that Ex.A.1 Section 38 E certificate stands in the name of Manik Reddy and Anjamma and the property being the self- acquired property of Manik Reddy, the children succeeded to the same as per the personal law. They also claimed that they should have been given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.727 of 2000, Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.1028 of 2000 and Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals are heard. The point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to 1/5th share each in the compensation for the acquired land? The admitted facts are that Bapurao Deshpande was the original pattadar for the acquired land of Acs. 8.23 guntas in S.No.80 of Itkepally and Manik Reddy was claimed to be the tenant in the land. Claimants 1 and 2 are the sons and the appellants are two of the daughters of Manik Reddy but there was nothing on record to show that there was any determination of the status of Manik Reddy as the protected tenant for the land for issuance of a protected tenancy certificate under the Act, after the advent of the enactment. PW.1 the 2nd claimant deposed and Ex.A.1 certified copy of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy under the said statutory provision disclosed that the ownership certificate was issued in the names of the claimants 1 and 2 only. Section 38 E in Sub-Section 2 mandates that such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of the certificate not only against the land holder but also against all the persons having any interest therein. The statutory irrebuttable presumption therefore is available for the claimants 1 and 2 in respect of their claim to the compensation amount and if any other heir of Manik Reddy was aggrieved by the grant of such ownership certificate in favour of claimants 1 and 2, their remedies may be as provided by the Act itself and not by way of agitation of any such rights before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the reference Court. While the rights of a protected tenant were made heritable under Section 40 of the Act, it is for the heirs entitled to hold the tenancy on the death of a protected tenant to protect their rights and in view of the statutory presumption under Section 38 E (2) of the Act, the reference Court could not have possibly gone against the ownership certificate. Apart from the fact that none of the other claimants produced any evidence before the reference Court, leaving the evidence of PW.1 and the contents of Exs.A.1 to A.10 uncontroverted and unrebutted, the conclusions of the reference Court cannot be therefore considered to be unreasonable or illegal in the face of Ex.A.1 ownership certificate. The conclusion or the confirmation of the same in these appeals will not preclude the appellants from pursuing any remedies available to them under law in this regard, if such remedies are still available to them but so far as the adjudication in respect of the right to receive compensation is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court and this Court are bound by the ownership certificate in existence as of now. As it is open for the appellants to pursue such remedies if they so desire, it is also to be noted that a portion of the compensation deposited to the credit of O.P.No.967 of 1990 still appears to be available with the reference Court and the same may be kept undistributed for a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this judgment to the parties. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed without costs, subject to the above observations. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 29th December, 2010. PNV