THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2007 DATED AUGUST, 2010 BETWEEN D.Janardhan and Another … Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sankarapalli, Ranga Reddy District and Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners assail the action of the revenue authorities, viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, respondents 1 and 2, in interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.109 of Ramanthapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and consequently seek a direction to them not to do so. The petitioners claim ownership and possession over the subject land under registered sale deed bearing No.1695/2003 dated 25.04.2003. The said document was executed in their favour by Kila Vittal Reddy, the owner, and Mangali Chandraiah, the recognized heir of the protected tenant, of the subject land. The petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records under proceedings No.B/7426/2003 dated 03.06.2004 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District, respondent 1. Thereafter, pattadar pass books were also issued in their favour on 27.08.2004. The pahani pertaining to the year 2004-2005 also reflects their names as pattadars and possessors of the subject land. It is their grievance that while matters stood thus, respondent 1 started interfering with their possession over the subject land. This interference is said to have commenced in the third week of October, 2006. Aggrieved thereby, they claim to have made representations to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, respondent 2, on 20.10.2006 and again on 11.01.2007. However, they allege that no action was taken on the representations. In view of the continued attempts by respondent 1 to interfere with their possession, the petitioners claim to have made an enquiry into the matter and stated that it came to light that the owner Kila Vittal Reddy surrendered the subject land under the land ceiling laws. The petitioners relied upon the proceedings of respondent 1 bearing No.A/1038/95 dated 24.02.1997 passed under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1950’) recognizing Mangali Chandraiah as one of the heirs of the protected tenant, Mangali Hanumanthu. In that view of the matter, they contended that the so-called surrender of the lands owned by the protected tenant by the owner, Kila Vittal Reddy, was untenable in law and could not have any legal consequence. As the revenue authorities were seeking to interfere with their possession over the subject land, basing on this so-called surrender, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. By order dated 25.01.2007, this Court directed status quo as on that date to be maintained. Thereafter, upon the representation made on behalf of the revenue authorities that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 19.12.2006, this Court by order dated 27.02.2007 directed the parties to maintain status quo. In his counter, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District, stated that the subject land was selected by the Land Reforms Tribunal under Section 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1973’) and therefore it assumed the status of Government land. He assailed the validity of the sale deed under which the petitioners claimed title. He further stated that Kila Vittal Reddy, the original pattadar of the subject land filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act of 1973 which was taken on file as C.C.No.Ch/2655/75. He was declared as being in possession of 0.5060 standard holding in excess of the ceiling limit, under the order of the Tribunal-II of Ranga Reddy District dated 30.10.1993. Pursuant thereto, it is claimed that an extent of Acs.26.01 guntas situated in Survey Nos.61, 104, 105, 106, 111, 53/2 and 109 (subject land) was taken over by the Government under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1973. Thereby, the land became Government land and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1977’) were attracted. The sale in favour of the petitioners is said to be in violation of Section 3 of the Act of 1977 and hence, void. He further stated that the possession of the subject land was taken over under the cover of panchanama following the direction of the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, on 19.12.2006 for distribution to landless poor persons. Heard Sri W.B.Srinivas, the learned counsel representing Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the revenue authorities. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the relief sought is in the nature of a perpetual injunction, this Court is not inclined to accept this plea. The complaint of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities were interfering with their possession without jurisdiction and without recourse to the due procedure laid down by law. Every citizen is guaranteed the right to enjoy his property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, subject to deprivation of the said right by the authority of law. Any infringement of this constitutional right by the State would be amenable to review by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It would not be necessary to drive a person complaining of such infringement to the Civil Court merely because the relief sought appears to be in the nature of a civil remedy. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader in this regard is therefore liable to be rejected. As it is the case of the revenue authorities that the subject land was surrendered by the original owner under the provisions of the Act of 1973, the records pertaining thereto were called for. Perusal thereof reflects: The Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, by its original order dated 26.02.1991 held that Kila Vittal Reddy was holding 0.6902 standard holding in excess of the ceiling limit. Thereafter, upon re-enquiry, by order dated 30.10.1993 the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, computed his excess land to be 0.5060 standard holding. The Notice dated 04.02.1994 in Form-VIII under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1974’) specifying Kila Vittal Reddy’s lands proposed for surrender mentions Survey Nos.104 (Acs.13.67½ cents), 105 (Acs.3.85 cents) and 106/A (Acs.7.77½ cents) of Shankarpally Village. Relevant to note, no mention is made of Survey No.109 of Shankarpally Village. The communication in D.O. Letter No.Ch/2655/75 dated 15.10.1997 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally Mandal, reflects that upon publication of Form-VIII, objection petitions were received. One such petition was filed by Mangali Chandraiah, the heir of the protected tenant, Mangali Hanumanthu. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, referred to the claim of the objection petitioners that they were in physical possession of the lands sought to be surrendered by Kila Vittal Reddy and more specifically, that Mangali Chandraiah contended that he was in physical possession of the land in Survey Nos.109 and 110 in the capacity of a protected tenant. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, was accordingly requested by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, to send a selection report for the additional area to be surrendered in lieu of the surplus land. Long thereafter, by proceedings in letter No.B/289/05 dated 24.03.2006 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally Mandal, reported to the Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, that certain lands had been taken possession of in Form-X under the Rules of 1974. Relevant to note, he specifically stated that in so far as the extent of Acs.7.15 guntas in Survey No.109 of Ramanthapur Village is concerned, the declarant was not in possession and that the protected tenants were in possession. Form-X appended to the aforestated letter indicated that only the land in Survey Nos.61, 104, 105 and 106 of Ramanthapur Village had been taken possession of. The table appended to the said letter under the endorsement of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, specifically depicts that the extents of Acs.7.15 guntas and Acs.6.31 guntas in Survey Nos.109 and 110 of Ramanthapur Village were not in the possession of the declarant of the lands and that the protected tenants were in possession of the entire extents in the said survey numbers. It appears that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, basing on its proceedings dated 13.10.2005 identifying various lands, including those in Survey Nos.109 and 110 of Ramanthapur Village, for surrender, issued proceedings dated 13.12.2006 recording the fact that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, under his letter dated 24.03.2006 had reported that the lands in Survey Nos.109 and 110 of Ramanthapur Village had not been taken possession and directed him to take possession of the said lands. Accordingly, Form-X certificate for taking possession was issued on 19.12.2006 in respect of these lands also. Surprisingly, Kila Vittal Reddy is shown to be the person from whom the possession was taken in respect of the lands mentioned therein, including the land in Survey No.109 of Ramanthapur Village. It is on the basis of the aforestated records that the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the subject land was surrendered to the Government and therefore ceased to be a private land. The gaping voids in the records however decimate this argument. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has no answer to the recognition conferred on Mangali Chandraiah under proceedings dated 24.02.1997 with regard to his succession to the protected tenancy rights of Mangali Hanumanthu under Section 40 of the Act of 1950. Perusal of the proceedings dated 24.02.1997 demonstrates that a protected tenancy certificate was produced by Mangali Chandraiah in evidence of his father, Mangali Hanumanthu, being the protected tenant in respect of the extent of Acs.5.28 guntas in Survey No.109 and Acs.11.31 guntas in Survey No.110 of Ramanthapur Village. Having verified the said certificate vis-a-vis the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally Mandal, recognized the succession of the protected tenancy rights of Mangali Hanumanthu under Section 40 of the Act of 1950 in favour of his sons, Mangali Venkaiah, Mangali Chandraiah and Mangali Anthaiah. The protected tenancy certificate produced before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally was obviously one under Section 38-E of the Act of 1950. Therefore, the protected tenant Mangali Hanumanthu became the owner of the subject land with effect from the date of the said certificate. Unfortunately, a copy of the said certificate is not placed on file but the fact remains that the revenue authorities themselves, having verified the same, recognized the existence of a protected tenant in the land in Survey No.109 of Ramanthapur Village as is evident from the records. In spite of being apprised of this fact by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, under letter dated 24.03.2006, surprisingly the Land Reforms Tribunal directed the taking over of possession of the lands which were said to be in the possession of protected tenants. Such course of action was in direct violation of Section 13 of the Act of 1973 which reads as under: “13. Special provision for protected tenants:–– (1) Where the holding of any owner includes any land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal shall, in the first instance, determine whether such land or part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenant under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, and if so, the extent of land so transferred; and such extent of land shall thereupon be excluded from the holding of such owner and included in the holding of such tenant, as if the tenant was the owner of such land for the purposes of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the relevant provisions of this Act aforestated shall apply in the matter of such land by such protected tenant.” In the light of the aforestated provision, the Land Reforms Tribunal ought to have undertaken an enquiry into the rights of the protected tenants and whether Mangali Hanumanthu had a protected tenancy certificate under Section 38-E of the Act of 1950. If held so, the extent of land held by him necessarily had to be excluded from the holding of Kila Vittal Reddy. No such exercise was undertaken as is evident from the record placed before the Court. Further, there is no explanation forthcoming as to how possession of the subject land was taken from Kila Vittal Reddy, when the letter dated 24.03.2006 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, clearly indicated that possession of the subject land was not with him. As matters stand, Mangali Hamanathu was possessed of a Section 38-E certificate and the same constituted conclusive evidence of his being the owner of the land held by him thereunder from the date of the certificate. His rights being heritable under Section 40 of the Act of 1950, by proceedings dated 24.02.1997 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpally, upon verification, conferred recognition of such succession rights in favour of Mangali Chandraiah and his two brothers. Relevant to note, Section 40 of the Act of 1950 states that the heir of a protected tenant would be entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which the protected tenant was holding the land at the time of his death. That being so, the ownership of Mangali Hanumanthu under the Section 38-E certificate devolved upon Mangali Chandraiah and his brothers. It is no doubt true that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners was executed only by Mangali Chandraiah and his brothers did not participate. However, as no objection was raised by them at that time or even thereafter, it is not for this Court to go into that issue. The fact remains that the heritable ownership rights of Mangali Hanumanthu devolved upon Mangali Chandraiah and were duly recognized by the revenue authorities under proceedings dated 24.02.1997. That being so, it is not open to the revenue authorities to now contend that the protected tenant and his heirs did not have any rights in the said property. The argument of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the sale in favour of the petitioners is void on the ground that the protected tenant could not have transferred his rights by way of such alienation. This contention does not hold water in the light of Section 48-A of the Act of 1950. Once the protected tenant acquired the right of ownership under Section 38 or Section 38-D or Section 38-E and more than eight years elapsed from the date of such acquisition, Section 48- A allows such protected tenant to permanently alienate or transfer such land. In the present case, the condition aforestated having been fulfilled, the alienation by the recognized heir of the protected tenant in favour of the petitioners cannot be assailed by the revenue authority. If at all, the other recognized heirs may have had locus to do so, but they are not before this Court. The contention of the revenue authorities that the sale is hit by Section 3 of the Act of 1977 demonstrates their complete lack of understanding of the legal environment in which they are operating. Mere surrender of land under the Act of 1973 does not convert such land into ‘assigned land’, unless it is allotted or transferred to landless poor persons, so as to bring into play, the Act of 1977. There is no evidence of such allotment or transfer in the present case. This argument is therefore fallacious in its very inception. In the light of the aforestated discussion, it is clear that the action of the authorities in proceeding under the Act of 1973 against the land held by the petitioners lawfully claiming through the protected tenant, is in clear violation of Section 13 of the Act of 1973 and is unsustainable in law. The alleged taking over of possession by the authorities pursuant to such illegal surrender of his so-called surplus land holdings by Kila Vittal Reddy, ignoring the vested rights of the protected tenants, is rendered equally unsustainable in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents to officially deliver the possession of the subject land being an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.109 of Ramanthapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the petitioners. The respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land on the ground that the same was surrendered by the erstwhile owner under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. __________ AUGUST, 2010. VGSR/PGS