*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD + Civil Revision Petition Nos.2335 of 2007 & 4705 of 2008 +C.R.P.No.2335 of 2007 % 01/07/2010 # Mothukuri Ranga Rao and another .. PETITIONERS Vs. $ Royyala Laxminarayana and 4 others .. RESPONDENTS +C.R.P.No.4705 of 2008 # Yedulapuram Pushpa and 118 others .. PETITIONERS Vs $ Royyala Laxminarayana and 6 others .. RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri Y. RAMA RAO ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Sri HARI SRIDHAR < Gist : Ø Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.2335 of 2007 & 4705 of 2008 C.R.P.No.2335 of 2007 Between: Mothukuri Ranga Rao and another .. Petitioners AND Royyala Laxminarayana and 4 others .. Respondents C.R.P.No.4705 of 2008 Between: Yedulapuram Pushpa and 118 others .. Petitioners AND Royyala Laxminarayana and 6 others .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: Both the Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of the Joint Collector, Warangal in RC E5/566/2006 dated 05.05.2007. C.R.P.No.2335 of 2007 is by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the proceedings, whereas C.R.P.No.4705 of 2008 is by 119 revision petitioners, who obtained leave of this Court to challenge the impugned order in their revision in C.R.P.MP.No.5961 of 2008. The factual background for the revisions is that one Hanumantha Rao was the pattadar of the land in Survey Nos.1017, 1018, 1019 and 1020 of an extent of 5.10 guntas, 10.12 guntas, 2.21 guntas and 6.39 guntas respectively of Madikonda village, Hanamakonda Mandal and Royyala Lachulu was recorded as the protected tenant of the land. When persons claiming under the original pattadar desired to have the protected tenancy certificate said to have been issued under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) cancelled, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal recorded that no such protected tenancy certificate was in fact issued, in case No.B/1994/92 dated 22-11-1993. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanumakonda, for declaring as protected tenant and delivery of possession of the lands to him impleading the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.2335 of 2007 as respondents and the same was negatived by the order dated 14-02-1995 on the ground of the petition having been made under a wrong provision of law. Then there was the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanumakonda in RC.No.C1/B3/3318/96, dated 30-03-1998 on the petition by the 1st respondent herein claiming to be the grandson of Royyala Lachulu and to restore possession of the land to him as the successor of the protected tenant. The Mandal Revenue Officer was of the opinion that the protected tenant himself was never in possession and the entry in Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 was clear proof of the absence of subsistence of protected tenancy of Royyala Lachulu. Opining that the 1st respondent herein has no subsisting right to seek relief under Section 32 of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer dismissed the petition. In appeal against the same, the Joint Collector, Warangal, passed an order on 07-06-1999 refusing to entertain the appeal on the ground of delay of 129 days, which was not satisfactorily explained. The 1st respondent herein preferred C.R.P.No.5704 of 1999 against the said order, which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 09-06-2000, but subsequently, the same order was again challenged in C.R.P.No.6929 of 2005 in which this Court condoned the delay of 2081 days in filing the revision before this Court acting on the representation that no revision was filed earlier and the then counsel misled the 1st respondent herein and also passed a further order on 23-12-2005 allowing the Civil Revision Petition and remitting the matter back to the Joint Collector to take up the delay condonation petition and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the indulgence shown by this Court in the matter. It is in consequence that the Joint Collector passed the impugned order, firstly, condoning the delay stating the same to be as per the orders of this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.3064 of 2005 and C.R.P.No.6929 of 2005. Thereafter the Joint Collector proceeded to note that the respondents before him had to be set ex parte as they did not attend the Court in spite of ample opportunities to represent the case. Then the Joint Collector answered the issue as to whether Royyala Lachulu, who is the grandfather of the appellant, was a protected tenant or not, with reference to the certificate issued under Sections 35 and 37 of the Act. The Joint Collector perused the records to find that the entry in Khasra Pahani in 1954-55 is doubtful in the light of the recording of the name of Dharma Reddy as a cultivator/ tenant even in 1952 to 1954. Refusing to accept any surrender of tenancy rights by Royyala Lachulu, the Joint Collector referred to certain precedents from this Court and concluded the protected tenancy rights of Royyala Lachulu to be subsisting. Consequently, the Joint Collector concluded that the 1st respondent herein is entitled for restoration of possession as a successor of the original protected tenant and also incidentally stated that any alienations made in contravention of the statutory provisions have no legal effect to the prejudice of the protected tenant. Of course, the direction to put the 1st respondent in possession was made subject to the verification of the genuineness of death certificates of the protected tenant and father of the 1st respondent herein and also ascertaining the validity of the claim of the 1st respondent herein as the legal heir to the protected tenant. The challenge to the said order in both the revision petitions is not only on the questions of fact, but also on the ground of condonation of delay by the Joint Collector without considering the merits of the request for such condonation and without application of mind. The revision petitioners also contended that the 1st respondent herein, who attained majority in 1982, was silent till 1991 indicating the falsity of the claim and filing of two revision petitions against the same order is also contended to be illegal. The revision petitioners also contended that about 300 persons as bonafide purchasers of respective parts of the land in dispute in their possession since 1960 were not given any notice though they have to be considered having perfected their title even by adverse possession. The verification report and enquiry report before the Joint Collector himself would show the existence of a number of houses in the lands constructed long ago after obtaining valid permissions changing the nature of the use of the land from agricultural to residential. The revision petitioners, therefore, desired the impugned order to be reversed. Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Hari Sridhar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, are heard and the other respondents to the proceedings before the Joint Collector are stated to be not necessary parties to these proceedings. The points that arise for consideration in these revision petitions are:- 1) Whether the condonation of delay by the Joint Collector is vitiated by non-application of mind? 2) Whether the impugned order is also vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice in the absence of any notice to or an opportunity of hearing to the persons in possession of the land in question? 3) To what relief? Point No.1: The appeal before the Joint Collector was obviously beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing the same by the statute and there was the question of condonation of delay, which the Joint Collector refused to consider in the first instance, only on which C.R.P.Nos.5704 of 1999 and 6929 of 2005 have arisen. Without going into the question whether notwithstanding the dismissal of C.R.P.No.5704 of 1999, this Court could have entertained and allowed C.R.P.No.6929 of 2005, the order in C.R.P.No.6929 of 2005 is not one straight away condoning the delay in filing the appeal by itself. What all was ordered was remitting the matter back to the Joint Collector to take up the delay condonation petition and pass appropriate orders. Though the Joint Collector was directed to keep in mind the indulgence shown by this Court in the matter in condoning the delay of 2081 days in filing the second Civil Revision Petition before this Court, it is obvious that this Court intended the orders to be passed to be “appropriate”. “Appropriate” in the appropriate legal sense with reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can only be considering whether the “applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation”. While the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, was overwhelmingly held to be susceptible to a liberal exercise, still the satisfaction of the Court concerned should be arrived at on the material on record in respect of the justification for the condonation of delay. It is obvious from the impugned order that the observation of this Court to keep in mind the indulgence by this Court appears to have influenced the Joint Collector to believe that he has to invariably condone the delay as per the orders of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order suffered from vice of non-application of mind in the matter of condonation of delay and has to necessarily go back to the Joint Collector for a fresh determination as earlier directed by this Court. Point No.2: Admittedly, the 1st respondent herein is not in physical possession of the property. Whether the absence of physical possession of the lands in question was since the time of Royyala Lachulu claimed to be the grandfather of the 1st respondent herein or subsequent thereto and whether the protected tenancy of Royyala Lachulu subsisted or not by the time the 1st respondent herein took recourse to the statutory remedies under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to claim possession of the lands, it is the claim of the revision petitioners in both the cases that the third party interest of about 300 persons intervened in the meanwhile. The revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.4705 of 2008 claimed to have purchased respective plots in their possession in or about 1960 and to have constructed residential houses therein respectively with the necessary permissions from the Grampanchayat and residing therein since then. It is true that the documents of purchase, possession and enjoyment of these revision petitioners are not before the Joint Collector or this Court, but they had no opportunity to place such material before the Joint Collector in the absence of any notice of the proceedings. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1950, or the statutory rules made thereunder do not appear to specify elaborately the procedure for the enquiries under the Act at any level. But, Section 89 (2) of the Act empowering the Tahsildar, the Tribunal and the Collector to exercise the powers of a Civil Court may offer a key to the manner in which such matters have to be heard and decided. The Transfer of Possession and Eviction Rules, 1957 (G.O.Ms.No.449, Revenue dated 13-3-1957) made with reference to Sections 32, 94 and 98 of the Act mandate in Rule 3 that a notice to show cause against eviction and an opportunity of hearing the objections and representations shall be given to the person in occupation of the land, when an application is made for being put in possession. Various other statutory rules under the Act under the other provisions also invariably prescribed notice to and opportunity of hearing to all persons interested or who are likely to be prejudiced by the result of the proceedings. Even otherwise, in exercise of quasi judicial powers by the respective authorities, the fundamental principles of judicial procedure ought to form the basis in the interests of justice and the principle that nobody shall be condemned unheard underlying the judicial process of this country should as well apply to such quasi judicial proceedings, like in this case either before passing the order under appeal before the Joint Collector or the order by the Joint Collector impugned herein. All the persons in possession as on the date of the approach of the 1st respondent herein to the authorities were not given any notice or opportunity. It is, therefore, necessary that while reconsidering the matter on remand, the Joint Collector should cause notice of the appeal before him served or duly tendered to all persons in physical possession of the lands in question and give them a reasonable opportunity of hearing before determination of the matter on merits, if all or any of them avail the opportunity given to them to have their version presented to the Joint Collector. Point No.3: In the result, the order of the Joint Collector, Warangal, in R.C.No.E5/566/2006, dated 05-05-2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Joint Collector, Warangal, for passing appropriate orders on the delay condonation petition not only in the light of the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.6929 of 2005 dated 23-12-2005, but also duly applying his mind to the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. In case the Joint Collector decides to condone the delay and entertain the appeal, notice of the appeal shall be given to all the persons in possession of the lands in question including the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.4705 of 2008, who claimed to be in such possession, and the appeal shall be determined on merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity to the original respondents and also to all such persons, who are given such notice, if they avail the opportunity to place their version before the Joint Collector. The Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly without costs. The Joint Collector shall pass such appropriate orders in the delay conodation petition and in case of entertainment of the appeal, in the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-07-2010 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. B.O/ Ksn