Sri. Jakkula Dasharatham, vs Sri. Jakkula Balaiah,
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
C.R.P. No.6423 of 2012
Between :
Sri Jakkula Dasharatham and others ...Petitioners
And
Sri Jakkula Balaiah and others ... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 28.10.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
: Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment
: Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3.
Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
:
Yes/No
___________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
-2-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
C.R.P. No.6423 of 2012
% 28.10.2026
Between :
# Sri Jakkula Dasharatham and others …. Petitioners
AND
$ Sri Jakkula Balaiah and others ….Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing
Sri C. Sumon, learned
counsel on record for the
petitioners
^ Counsel for respondents : Sri J. Suresh Babu, learned
counsel for the respondents
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. 2006 (5) ALD 348.
2. 2021 (5) ALT 255 (TS).
3. 1986 (2) APLJ 48 (SN).
4. 1988 (1) A.L.T. 93
5. TSHC: WP No. 26482 OF 2015, dated 04.09.2024
6. 2021 INSC 588.
7. AIR 1988 AP 77
8. 2011 (1) ALD 497.
9. 2026 (1) ALT 352 (D.B)
-3-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6423 of 2012
(CNR No.HBHC010579032012)
Date: 28.10.2026
Reserved on: 29.07.2026 Pronounced on: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on: 28.10.2026
BETWEEN:
Sri Jakkula Dasharatham and others ...Petitioners
And
Sri Jakkula Balaiah and others ... Respondents
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the
Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short,
“the Tenancy Act”), against the order dated 01.09.2012 passed by
the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, in Case
No.F1/IA-05/2010. By the said order, the learned Joint Collector
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 90 of
the Tenancy Act and confirmed the order dated 30.03.2010 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in File
No.K/1972/2009, by which certificate under Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act were issued in favour of all the legal heirs of late
Jakkula Balaiah, in respect of an extent of Ac.8.29 guntas in
Sy.No.456 of Yelikatta Village, Farooqnagar Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District.
-4-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
2. Heard Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri C. Sumon, learned counsel for the petitioners, and
Sri J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused
the material available on record.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. It is not in dispute that late Jakkula Balaiah was the original
Protected Tenant (“PT”) of the land to an extent of Ac.8.29 guntas
in Sy.No.456 of Yelikatta Village, Farooqnagar Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District (for short, “the subject land”), and that one
Venkat Anantha Reddy was the original pattadar.
4. The original pattadar was holding land in excess of two
family holdings. Following an enquiry, the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, Mahabubnagar, prepared and published the final list of
Protected Tenants in File No. A10/12142/74, identifying the
persons entitled to the transfer of ownership rights, including
Jakkula Balaiah, who had been declared as Protected Tenant in
respect of the subject land. However, issuance of an Ownership
Certificate in his favour under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act,
remained incomplete for want of an application from him.
5. Late Jakkula Balaiah died in 1980-81, leaving behind five
sons, namely Krishnaiah, Yellaiah, Shivaiah, Jangaiah and
-5-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
Ramaiah, and five daughters, as his legal heirs. All of them, except
Jakkula Shivaiah, have since died. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the
children of Jakkula Shivaiah, while the respondents are the other
grandchildren of late Balaiah, claiming through his deceased sons
and daughters.
6. In the year 2007, Jakkula Shivaiah, the only surviving son,
applied for issuance of the ownership certificate in respect of the
subject land, claiming that he was in exclusive possession of it. By
proceedings dated 04.10.2007 in File No.K/2068/2006, the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, ordered registration of
his name as owner, and a certificate in Form-II under Rule 5(1) of
the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer
of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 (for short, “the Rules, 1973”)
was issued. In those proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer
recorded that the ownership rights were deemed to have already
been conferred on the protected tenant and that only the issuance
of the certificate remained incomplete for want of an application.
7. Within about two months thereafter, Jakkula Shivaiah sold
Ac.2.09 guntas out of the subject land to petitioner No.4 under a
registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007, and the remaining extent of
Ac.6.20 guntas to petitioner No.5 and others under a registered
sale deed dated 20.12.2007.
-6-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
8. On coming to know of the issuance of the Ownership
Certificate in favour of Jakkula Shivaiah, the other legal heirs of
late Balaiah, who are the children of his deceased sons and
daughters, filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act
before the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in Case
No.F1/05/2008. They contended that being the legal heirs of late
Balaiah, they were also entitled to ownership rights in the subject
land along with Jakkula Shivaiah and that the certificate had been
obtained by suppressing their existence and without notice to
them. By order dated 04.06.2009, the learned Joint Collector
allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 04.10.2007 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer and remanded the matter for a de novo
enquiry after giving opportunity to both sides.
9. Pursuant to the remand, the Revenue Divisional Officer
conducted a fresh enquiry after issuing notice to all the legal heirs.
By order dated 30.03.2010 in File No.K/1972/2009, the Revenue
Divisional Officer directed the issuance of Ownership Certificate
under Section 38-E in favour of all the legal heirs with equal rights
in accordance with their respective lineal shares. Accordingly,
certificate in Form-II was issued under Rule 5(1) of the Rules,
1973. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal
under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, which the learned Joint
-7-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
Collector dismissed by order dated 01.09.2012 in Case No.F1/IA-
05/2010, confirming the issuance of the ownership certificate in
favour of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 as well as the respondents.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present
Civil Revision Petition.
ORDER OF THE JOINT COLLECTOR
10. The learned Joint Collector noted from the final list of
Protected Tenants that Venkat Anantha Reddy was the pattadar
and Jakkula Balaiah was the protected tenant of the subject land,
that Balaiah died leaving behind five sons and five daughters, and
that all his legal heirs, except Jakkula Shivaiah, had died. Relying
on Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, the learned Joint Collector held
that all the lineal descendants of the protected tenant succeed to
the land. Accordingly, he concluded that the Revenue Divisional
Officer had rightly issued the ownership certificate under Section
38-E of the Tenancy Act, in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased
protected tenant in accordance with their respective shares, and
found no reason to interfere with the order.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer, in File
No.K/1972/2009, and the learned Joint Collector, in the appellate
-8-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
proceedings in Case No.F1/IA-05/2010, failed to properly
appreciate the earlier proceedings in File No.A10/1242/74, in
which ownership rights in the subject land were conferred on late
Balaiah, grandfather of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the respondents.
According to the petitioners, though ownership rights had been
conferred on Jakkula Balaiah, the certificate under Section 38-E of
the Tenancy Act was not issued to him during his lifetime.
12. It is further submitted that, after the death of late Balaiah in
1980-81, a family arrangement was made among his sons, under
which the subject land fell to the share of Jakkula Shivaiah, father
of petitioner Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that, pursuant to that
arrangement, late Jakkula Shivaiah remained in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the land, and the other branches of
the family gave up their claims. It is therefore urged that the
issuance of the Section 38-E certificate in favour of late Jakkula
Shivaiah in 2007 cannot, by itself, be treated as the date on which
he acquired ownership rights, as such rights had already been
conferred on the family in the earlier proceedings in the 1980s.
13. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the
authorities below erred in applying Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act
on the ground that late Jakkula Shivaiah sold the land within the
prohibited period from the date of issuance of the Section 38-E
-9-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
certificate. According to the petitioners, the restriction under
Section 48-A has to be counted from the date on which the
ownership rights were acquired, and not merely from the date on
which the certificate evidencing such rights was later issued. As
the ownership rights had accrued to late Jakkula Shivaiah in the
1980s and the sales were made only in 2007, the sales in favour of
petitioner Nos.4 and 5 could not have been held to violate Section
48-A of the Tenancy Act.
14. It is also submitted that late Jakkula Shivaiah executed a
registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 in favour of petitioner No.4
in respect of Ac.2.09 guntas, and another registered sale deed
dated 20.12.2007 in favour of petitioner No.5 and others in respect
of the remaining extent of Ac.6.20 guntas. According to the
petitioners, possession was delivered under these registered sale
deeds, and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are in possession and enjoyment
of their respective extents. Reliance is also placed on the judgment
and decree dated 12.02.2009 in O.S.No.88 of 2008 of the learned
Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, by which the suit filed by petitioner
No.4 for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 8 was
decreed, as the said respondents remained ex-parte. It is
contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in treating that
-10-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
judgment and decree as redundant and in holding that the
registered sale deeds were invalid or unenforceable.
15. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
respondents failed to establish before the revenue authorities that
they were the legal heirs or lineal descendants entitled to claim the
land through late Jakkula Balaiah. It is contended that the
authorities below nevertheless recognised their claim and upheld
the issuance of the Section 38-E certificate in their favour, without
properly examining the rival claims, the earlier proceedings, the
alleged family arrangement, the possession of the petitioners and
the effect of the registered sale deeds. According to the petitioners,
the revenue authorities also failed to see that an independent claim
of title or possession based on a disputed succession or family
rights could not have been decided summarily, contrary to the
material placed before them.
16. Learned Senior Counsel relies on the decisions of the
erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Syed Abdul Majeed v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy
1 2
District and of this Court in B. Malla Reddy v. State of Telangana ,
in support of the contention that the Tahsildar and other Revenue
1
2006 (5) ALD 348.
2
2021 (5) ALT 255 (TS).
-11-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
Authorities have no jurisdiction or power to decide disputed
questions of succession which fall within the domain of the
competent Civil Court.
17. On the above grounds, the petitioners contend that the order
dated 30.03.2010 of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Case
No.K/1972/2009 and the consequential appellate order dated
01.09.2012 of the learned Joint Collector in Case No.F1/IA-
05/2010 suffer from errors of jurisdiction, wrong application of the
provisions of the Tenancy Act and failure to appreciate the material
evidence on record. The petitioners therefore contend that the
appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal under Section
90 of the Tenancy Act and set aside the order of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, and pray that the impugned orders be interfered
with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, with
such further orders as may be deemed appropriate in the interests
of justice.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that late
Balaiah was the original Protected Tenant of the subject land and
died leaving behind five sons and five daughters, who are his lineal
descendants and are entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights
under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act. It is further contended that,
-12-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
while issuing the Section 38-E certificate in favour of Jakkula
Shivaiah, the other sons and daughters of late Jakkula Balaiah
were not considered and no notice was served on them. Hence, the
proceedings in File No. K/2068/2006 are stated to have been
conducted behind their back and are not binding on them.
19. It is submitted that Section 38-E Ownership Certificate dated
04.10.2007 obtained by Jakkula Shivaiah was obtained by
suppressing the existence of the other legal heirs of late Jakkula
Balaiah, and that the land was thereafter sold to petitioner Nos.4
and 5. The affected legal heirs filed Appeal Case No. F1/05/2008
before the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, who, by order
dated 04.06.2009, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, for de novo
enquiry. It is contended that the earlier proceedings in File No.
K/2068/2006 thus stood set aside and no operative order arising
from them remained against the respondents.
20. It is further submitted that, after the remand, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, issued notices to the legal heirs
of late Jakkula Balaiah, conducted an enquiry and, by order dated
30.03.2010 in Case No. K/1972/2009, recognised the rights and
respective shares of all the legal heirs. In view of Section 40 of the
Tenancy Act, all the lineal descendants of the original Protected
-13-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
Tenant are entitled to the tenancy rights, and there is no need to
decide their legal heirship afresh, particularly when their status as
legal heirs was already recognised in the earlier proceedings.
21. It is submitted that neither the petitioners nor their
predecessor disputed the relationship of the respondents with late
Jakkula Balaiah before the revenue authorities, in the earlier or
the later proceedings. It is further submitted that the Revenue
Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and that its decision on
issues within its jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in
appropriate cases.
22. It is further submitted that Jakkula Shivaiah, immediately
after obtaining the Section 38-E certificate, sold the subject land to
petitioner Nos.4 and 5, which is stated to be contrary to the
provisions of the Tenancy Act, that their names were thereafter
recorded in the Record of Rights without the required enquiry or
notice to the persons having existing tenancy rights, and that the
name of the tenant was also removed from the Tenancy Register
without following the prescribed procedure.
23. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kothapalli Gal Reddi v. Sakkala
-14-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
3 4
Nagaia and Ponam Bai v. Ajmeer Bhikku , wherein it was held that
a permanent alienation by a protected tenant within the statutory
period is void and opposed to public policy, and that a compromise
recognising such an alienation is void under Section 23 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
24. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench
5
of this Court in P. Anjaiah v. State of Telangana , wherein it was
held that, where there is no dispute about succession or the status
of the legal heirs of the protected tenant, the Tahsildar/Mandal
Revenue Officer is competent to verify and recognise the rights of
the successors under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act read with Rule
14 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1950 (for short,
“the Rules, 1950”), and that recourse to the Civil Court is required
where there is a serious dispute about the status of the legal
heirs/successors of the protected tenant.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Sridhar Reddy
6
v. Mandala Ramulamma , wherein it was held that a protected
tenancy could be terminated only in a manner known to law, and
that, once a person becomes a protected tenant, he is entitled to an
3
1986 (2) APLJ 48 (SN).
4
1988 (1) A.L.T. 93
5
TSHC: WP No. 26482 OF 2015, dated 04.09.2024
6
2021 INSC 588.
-15-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
ownership certificate, upon being qualified, though out of
possession.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
26. Upon the aforesaid pleadings and submissions, the following
points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the restriction on permanent alienation or
transfer of land acquired by a protected tenant, contained
in Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, operates from the
notified date or from the date of issuance of the certificate
under Section 38-E?
(ii) Whether, upon the death of the protected tenant, his
lineal descendants can seek recognition of their
succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act and the
issuance of a certificate under Section 38-E before the
revenue authorities when there is no serious dispute
about their status as legal heirs, or whether they must
first approach the Civil Court for a declaration of
succession?
(iii) Whether Jakkula Shivaiah, on the strength of his
possession and the alleged family arrangement, was
entitled to the certificate under Section 38-E to the
exclusion of the other legal heirs of the protected tenant?
and
(iv) Whether the order of the learned Joint Collector,
confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
-16-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
warrants interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
26. Upon the aforesaid pleadings and submissions, the following
points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the restriction on permanent alienation or
transfer of land acquired by a protected tenant, contained
in Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, operates from the
notified date or from the date of issuance of the certificate
under Section 38-E?
(ii) Whether, upon the death of the protected tenant, his
lineal descendants can seek recognition of their
succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act and the
issuance of a certificate under Section 38-E before the
revenue authorities when there is no serious dispute
about their status as legal heirs, or whether they must
first approach the Civil Court for a declaration of
succession?
(iii) Whether Jakkula Shivaiah, on the strength of his
possession and the alleged family arrangement, was
entitled to the certificate under Section 38-E to the
exclusion of the other legal heirs of the protected tenant?
and
(iv) Whether the order of the learned Joint Collector,
confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
-17-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
warrants interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the material on record. The points
are considered in the order in which they are framed.
28. At the outset, the statutory framework relevant to these
points may be noted. The Tenancy Act protects tenants of
agricultural lands and provides for the transfer of ownership of the
land held by a protected tenant to him. Section 38-E provides that
the ownership of the land held by a protected tenant stands
transferred to him on the notified date, namely 01.01.1973, subject
to the landholder’s right to compensation, and that the certificate
issued under the said provision is conclusive evidence of the
protected tenant having become the owner of the land. The
procedure for issuance of the certificate is laid down in the Rules,
1973. Section 40 makes the rights of a protected tenant heritable
and declares his lineal descendants to be his heirs. Section 48-A
restricts permanent alienation or transfer of land acquired by a
protected tenant for a period of eight years. Sections 90 and 91
-18-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
provide an appeal to the Joint Collector and a revision to this Court
against the orders passed by the competent authorities.
Point (i) – Date from which Section 48-A operates
29. The first point turns upon Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act,
which reads as follows:
48A. [ Restriction on permanent alienation or transfer of
land acquired by protected tenant.
(1) [In the case of a permanent alienation or transfer by a
protected tenant of any land in respect of which he has
acquired] the right of ownership under section 38 or section
38-D or section 38-E at the reasonable price determined by
the Tribunal and more than eight years have not elapsed
since the date of such acquisition, the Tahsildar may take
over the land on payment to the protected tenant as
compensation a sum equivalent to the reasonable price so
determined.
Where any portion of the reasonable price still remains to
be paid to the landholder whose interests were acquired by
the protected tenant, such portion shall be paid to the
landholder from the compensation payable under this
section and the balance shall be paid to the protected
tenant.
(2) The land so taken over shall vest in the Government free
from all encumbrances and shall be under their
management until it is disposed of in accordance with the
rules made under this Act.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply,-
-19-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
(a) to a simple mortgage effected by the protected
tenant; or
(b) to any gift made by the protected tenant in favour of
his spouse or children: provided that any alienation or
transfer of land made by the donee within a period of eight
years from the date of the acquisition of the ownership by
the protected tenant shall be subject to the restrictions
contained in this section as if it was an alienation or
transfer made by the protected tenant.]
30. A perusal of the provision makes it clear that the bar
operates from the date on which the protected tenant acquires the
ownership rights. The question, therefore, is whether a protected
tenant who is found eligible acquires ownership on the notified
date, or on the date of issuance of the ownership certificate under
Section 38-E.
31. Under the scheme of the Tenancy Act, the protected tenant is
deemed to be the owner of the land from the notified date, namely
01.01.1973. A protected tenant who is found eligible for a
certificate under Section 38-E is, therefore, deemed to have
acquired ownership rights from the notified date, whether or not he
is in possession of the land. The Full Bench of the erstwhile High
7
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor , which dealt
7
AIR 1988 AP 77
-20-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
with the issuance of a certificate under Section 38-E with or
without possession of the land, held as follows:
“44. In our view, this contention is not correct. If a
protected tenant is already in physical possession on
the date of notification there is no problem at all. If
proceedings under Sections 19, 32 or 44 are pending,
the date of vesting gets itself postponed. If the
“protected tenancy” stood validly terminated by the
date of notification under Sections 19, 32 or 44, in that
case, no certificate at all can be issued. But, as long as
a person continued to be a “protected tenant” either
under Sections 34, 37 or 37-A, as per the Act and has
not lost that status, whether he is in actual possession
or not on the date of notification, and is also to be
“deemed” to be in possession under the first part of the
Explanation subject to Section 32(7) and the proviso to
Section 38-E(1), the ownership stands transferred
straightaway to such protected tenant by the very force
of Section 38-E(1).”
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Sridhar Reddy’s case
(supra) , following the Full Bench decision in Sada’s case (supra) ,
held that a protected tenancy could be terminated only in a
manner known to law, and that, once a person becomes a
protected tenant, he is entitled to an ownership certificate, upon
being qualified, though out of possession, in the following terms:
-21-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
“30. This Court in Bal Reddy quoted with approval the
Full Bench judgment in Sada as well as the earlier
judgment of this Court in Kotaiah to hold that protected
tenancy could be terminated only in a manner known
to law. In the absence of such valid termination of
‘protected tenancy’, the interest of such protected
tenant continues to be operative and subsisting in law
and could devolve on his legal heirs and
representatives who could then claim restoration of
possession. As laid down in Sada, even if the protected
tenant had lost possession, without there being valid
termination of his status as a protected tenant, he
would still be entitled to all incidents of protection
under the Act.
31. We shall now examine the respective contentions of
the parties in view of the law laid down and also the
judgment of the High Court in Sada which has stood
the test of time for last more than 30 years. The
scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV of the
Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materially
different from that of tenants governed by Chapter III of
the Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at
much higher pedestal as even if a protected tenant is
not in possession of the land, right has been given to
him to seek possession later. Therefore, neither Section
19 nor Section 32 forming part of Chapter III of the
Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of protected
tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5)
which starts with a non obstante clause giving
-22-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
overriding effect to anything contained in Section 38-E.
Such clause mandates the Collector to hold an enquiry
suo motu to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender
of right made by the protected tenant. This exercise
had to be done before the surrender of tenancy rights
and not subsequently after many years of alleged
surrender on the strength of unequal bargaining power
with the tenant who survives on the basis of
agriculture activities.
32. The purchasers relied upon an oral surrender of
tenancy rights in the year 1954 and later by a written
document of 5.2.1957. The execution of the document
in the year 1957 unequivocally proves the factum of
protected tenancy of the respondents herein. Such
surrender is contrary to Section 47 of the Tenancy Act
prior to its omission by AP Act No. 12 of 1969 and in
contravention of Section 38-E(5) read with Section
19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.
33. A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession
in terms of Section 36 as well as Section 44 of the
Tenancy Act which prohibits the termination of
protected tenancy. The proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 44 of the Tenancy Act puts complete embargo
on a land holder to exercise the right of resumption
unless he has within a period of eighteen months from
the commencement of the said Act sought reservation
of land to exercise his right or resumption in terms of
the commencement of Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955. The Deputy
Collector in terms of the said provision had to make a
-23-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
necessary enquiry and issue a certificate that the land
has been so reserved. Thus, the land holder had no
right to terminate the tenancy after the commencement
of Amending Act, 1955 except after an enquiry which
was to be conducted by the Deputy Collector. No such
reservation had been made nor any enquiry was
conducted, therefore, the rights of protected tenant
cannot be defeated.
34. The purchasers have relied upon the oral surrender
of protected tenancy in the year 1954. Such surrender
of oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible
under the Tenancy Act except in the manner which is
prescribed under Section 38-E(5) read with Section 19
of the Tenancy Act. Still further, the protected tenant
has a right to seek possession in terms of Section 36 of
the Tenancy Act. Even in terms of Section 38-D, if the
land holder intends to sell the land which is in
possession of a protected tenant, he has to give a
notice in writing of his intention to such protected
tenant.
35. Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of
certificate of ownership under Section 38-E, the
protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners
of such land. Further, explanation provided under
Section 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenant has
been dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and
by the order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32,
then notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of
any Court, or the order of the Board of Revenue or
Tribunal shall be deemed to be holding the land on the
-24-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
date of notification. The Tahsildar is under an
obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of an
application by the protected tenant, to hold a summary
enquiry and direct taking of land in possession of the
land holder or any other person claiming through or
under him. The possession from a protected tenant can
be taken only if the surrender of tenancy is approved
by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The land owner is
liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 of
the Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally
within one year. Therefore, there is an embargo on the
surrender of tenancy rights by protected tenant and
even if the tenancy is terminated, the land holder is
personally liable to restore possession to the tenant, if
he fails to cultivate the land within one year of
termination of tenancy.
36. Once a certificate of ownership is granted which is
required to be published in the Government Gazette,
the land stands transferred and vested in the protected
tenant as a full owner of such land. Such certificate is
final subject to the rights of the landowner under the
Tenancy Act which is only to seek compensation.”
33. Thus, irrespective of possession, if the protected tenant is
found eligible, he is declared and deemed to be the owner of the
land. The scheme of the Tenancy Act also requires the authorities
to prepare the worksheet under the Rules, 1973 and then to issue
the ownership certificate in favour of the protected tenant, so that
the protected tenant need not apply for the certificate. The
-25-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
certificate, in other words, is the end result of a duty cast on the
authorities and evidences ownership that has already vested; it is
not the source of that ownership. The present case itself shows
this, for the Revenue Divisional Officer recorded, in his proceedings
dated 04.10.2007, that the ownership rights were already deemed
to have been conferred on the protected tenant and that only the
procedural step of issuing the certificate remained incomplete for
want of an application.
34. The respondents contend that the eight-year bar must be
counted from 04.10.2007, the date of issuance of the certificate in
favour of Jakkula Shivaiah, and that the sales made within two
months thereafter are void. They rely on Kothapalli Gal Reddi’s
case (supra) and Ponam Bai’s case (supra) , which hold that a
permanent alienation by a protected tenant within the statutory
period is void and opposed to public policy. This Court has no
quarrel with that proposition. But it applies only where the
alienation falls within the statutory period, and those decisions do
not alter the position, discussed above, on the date on which a
protected tenant acquires ownership. In view of the foregoing
discussion, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the
respondents that the bar in Section 48-A has to be reckoned from
the date of issuance of the 38-E ownership certificate.
-26-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
35. Accordingly, the restriction of period on permanent
alienation or transfer of land acquired by a protected tenant, as
contemplated under Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act, applies from
the notified date, namely 01.01.1973. Point (i) is answered
accordingly.
Point (ii) – Succession before the revenue authorities
36. The next question is whether the respondents were required
to approach the Civil Court for a declaration that they are the legal
heirs of late Balaiah. Section 40 of the Tenancy Act declares that,
upon the death of a protected tenant, his lineal descendants by
blood are entitled to hold the land on the same terms as the
original protected tenant. It is apposite to extract Section 40 of the
Tenancy Act, which reads as follows:
“40. Rights of protected tenant heritable:-
(1) All rights of a protected tenant shall be heritable.
(2) If a protected tenant dies, his heir or heirs shall be
entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and
conditions on which such protected tenant was holding
the land at the time of his death and such heirs may,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, sub-
divide inter se according to their shares the land
comprised in the tenancy to which they have succeeded.
-27-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
(3) If a protected tenant dies without leaving any heirs,
all his rights shall be extinguished.
Explanation:- The following persons shall be deemed to
be the heirs of a protected tenant for the purposes of
this section, — (a) his legitimate lineal descendants by
blood or adoption; (b) in the absence of any such
descendants, his widow for so long as she does not
remarry.”
37. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1950 requires any person who acquires
an interest or right in land as a holder or tenant, by succession,
survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, gift or otherwise, to
report such acquisition to the Patwari or the Tahsildar within one
month, whereupon the Tahsildar verifies the acquisition and enters
it in the register of mutation.
38. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on Syed
Abdul Majeed’s case (supra) , in which the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh observed that the Tahsildar has no power to
decide questions of succession to a protected tenant under Section
40 of the Tenancy Act, and that it is for the Civil Court to do so.
The relevant observations read as follows:
“15. Reading Section 40 of the Act and the Tenancy
Rules together, it must be held that though under
Section 40 of the Act, Tahsildar has no power to decide
questions of succession to the protected tenancy, in the
-28-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
event of acquisition of rights, Tahsildar can conduct
verification under Rule 14 of the Rules and order
amendments in the register of mutations. Such a
procedure is also contemplated under Section 4 of the
A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971
and Rule 18 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Book Rules, 1989. The enquiry contemplated for
amending mutation in the event of acquisition of rights
either by survivorship or succession is altogether
different from adjudicating the question of succession.
Even while dealing with the application for recording
for amendment of entries in the mutation register, if
there is a dispute by the applicant, the MRO should
relegate such party to the Civil Court.”
39. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on B. Malla Reddy’s case
(supra) for the same contention that the Tahsildar or the Revenue
Authorities have no power to decide a question of succession, and
that such a dispute has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The
relevant portion reads as follows:
“12. Claim to succession cannot be decided by a
Revenue Tribunal and a person claiming to have
succeeded to a right or interest of his ancestor vested
in a property has to seek declaration from the civil
Court. Once such declaration is granted by the civil
Court, he can make an application under Section 40 of
the Act, 1950. From a plain reading of Section 99 of the
Act, 1950 it is apparent that jurisdiction of civil Court is
-29-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
not ousted on deciding the issue of succession claim. It
only bars jurisdiction of civil Court against any
decision made by the authority under the Act. This
finer distinction has to be kept in mind to understand
the scheme of the Act.”
40. The decision in Syed Abdul Majeed’s case (supra) was
clarified by the same learned Judge in a later decision in Pushpa
8
Patel Chavda v. Mandal Revenue Officer , wherein it was held that,
where there is no dispute among the legal heirs, the Tahsildar may
verify under Rule 14 and effect the necessary mutation, but where
a dispute arises, the parties must be relegated to the Civil Court.
41. The Division Bench of this Court in P. Anjaiah’s case (supra)
has also clarified this aspect, holding that the legal heirs or
successors of a protected tenant are entitled to apply under Rule
14 of the Rules, 1950; that, by virtue of Rule 14 and Section 40,
the Tahsildar can verify and order amendments in the register of
mutations if there is no dispute about succession and the
applicants are only lineal descendants of the protected tenant; and
that it is only where there is a serious dispute about the status of
the legal heirs that the Tahsildar has to direct the parties to
approach the Civil Court for a declaration. The relevant portion
reads as follows:
8
2011 (1) ALD 497.
-30-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
“17. For the foregoing reasons and taking into
consideration the principles enumerated in the orders
and judgments mentioned 'supra', this Court is of the
considered view that the legal heirs/successors of the
protected tenant are entitled to make an application
under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1950. By virtue of Rule 14
of the Rules, 1950 and also as per Section 40 of the
Act, the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer can
conduct verification and order for amendments in the
register of mutations, if there is no dispute existing
with regard to succession and if the applicants are
only lineal descendants of protected tenant. If there is
any serious dispute about status of legal
heirs/successors of the protected tenant, the Tahsildar
has to direct the parties to approach the civil Court
seeking declaration. Thereafter they are entitled to
make an application as per the provisions of Section 40
of the Act for grant of succession.”
42. It is also to be noted that, in Digambar Rao v. Joint Collector,
9
Ranga Reddy District , another Division Bench, dealing with the
powers of the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue a succession
certificate, held that where there is a serious dispute the Tahsildar
is not competent to decide it, as such a dispute cannot be decided
by the revenue authorities and any proceedings taken by them are
without authority of law.
9
2026 (1) ALT 352 (D.B)
-31-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
43. The test, therefore, is whether there is a serious dispute
about succession. The decisions in Syed Abdul Majeed’s case
(supra) and B. Malla Reddy’s case (supra) , relied on by the
petitioners, deal with the power of the Tahsildar or the revenue
authorities to decide a disputed question of succession, and they
do not assist the petitioners where the status of the claimants as
legal heirs is not in dispute. In the present case, the record shows
that neither petitioner Nos.1 to 3 nor their father disputed the
relationship of the respondents at any stage before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, and the contention in the grounds of revision
that the respondents furnished no proof of their lineage is not
borne out by the record. The only dispute raised by Jakkula
Shivaiah, one of the sons of late Balaiah, is that, since he was
found to be in possession of the subject land, he alone is entitled to
the certificate under Section 38-E, and that the other legal heirs
never claimed such rights or applied for them. That is a claim to
exclusive rights over the land and not a dispute about the status of
the respondents as lineal descendants of the protected tenant.
44. When Section 40 of the Tenancy Act enables the lineal
descendants by blood to be recognised as the legal heirs of the
protected tenant, it cannot be said that such legal heirs have to be
sent to the Civil Court for a declaration of succession. The same
-32-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
principle applies to Jakkula Shivaiah, who does not stand on a
different footing from the other legal heirs. Point (ii) is answered
accordingly.
Point (iii) – Claim of Jakkula Shivaiah to exclusive rights
45. The petitioners contend that, because Jakkula Shivaiah was
in continuous possession under a family arrangement, the
certificate could be issued to him alone. As discussed under Point
(i), the ownership of a protected tenant who is found eligible does
not depend on his possession, and, as held in
Sada’s case (supra)
and Thota Sridhar Reddy’s case (supra) , a protected tenant who is
out of possession is entitled to the ownership certificate if he is
qualified. The same reasoning applies to the heirs of the protected
tenant, whose entitlement flows from Section 40 and not from their
possession. Insofar as possession is concerned, it is settled law
that a co-owner or joint owner of any property cannot claim
exclusive possession as against the other co-owners. Since it is not
in dispute that the respondents are also legal heirs of late Balaiah,
they are entitled to equal shares as per the lineage of late Balaiah
in accordance with Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, as rightly held
by the authorities.
46. The alleged family arrangement, and the sale deeds executed
by Jakkula Shivaiah on the strength of his exclusive claim, are
-33-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
matters of private rights between the parties. They do not displace
the statutory entitlement of the lineal descendants of the protected
tenant to the certificate under Section 38-E. Whether such an
arrangement was in fact made, whether it binds the other legal
heirs, and what effect it has on title or possession are questions
that fall outside the scope of the present proceedings, and this
Court expresses no opinion on them. Point (iii) is answered
accordingly.
Point (iv) – Scope for interference in revision
47. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after the necessary enquiry
on remand and after issuing notice to all the legal heirs, issued the
certificate under Section 38-E in favour of the legal heirs of late
Balaiah, and the learned Joint Collector confirmed the same in
appeal. Both authorities proceeded on the basis that under Section
40 of the Tenancy Act, the lineal descendants of the protected
tenant are entitled to succeed to the land in equal shares. The
approach adopted by the Authorities is in accordance with law.
48. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, this court
finds no illegality, material irregularity or error of jurisdiction in
the order of the learned Joint Collector affirming the order of the
Revenue Divisional Officer directing the issuance of ownership
certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act in favour of the
-34-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
legal heirs of late Balaiah, the protected tenant. No ground is
therefore, made out for interference in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. Point (iv) is answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION
49. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court concludes as
follows:
(a) The restriction of period on permanent alienation or
transfer of land acquired by a protected tenant, as
contemplated under Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act,
applies from the notified date, namely 01.01.1973.
(b) The lineal descendants of a protected tenant can seek
recognition of their succession under Section 40 of the
Tenancy Act before the revenue authorities, when there
is no serious dispute about their status as legal heirs.
(c) Jakkula Shivaiah, on the strength of his possession or
the alleged family arrangement, was not entitled to the
ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy
Act to the exclusion of the other legal heirs of late
Balaiah, who are entitled to equal shares as per their
lineage.
(d) The order of the learned Joint Collector confirming the
order of the Revenue Divisional Officer does not warrant
-35-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court.
50. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the
validity or effect of the sale deeds executed by Jakkula Shivaiah, or
of the alleged family arrangement, and that all such questions are
left open to be decided by the appropriate forum in accordance
with law.
RESULT
51. For the foregoing reasons:
(a) C. R. P.No.6423 of 2012 is dismissed.
(b) The order dated 01.09.2012 of the learned Joint
Collector, Mahabubnagar District, in Case No.F1/IA-
05/2010, affirming the order dated 30.03.2010 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in File
No.K/1972/2009, is confirmed; and
(c) The issuance of certificate under Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act in favour of the legal heirs of late Jakkula
Balaiah, with equal shares as per their lineage, in
respect of the subject land in Sy.No.456 of Yelikatta
Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District,
stands confirmed.
-36-
VRKR,J
CRP_6423_2012
52. There shall be no order as to costs.
53. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 28.10.2026
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o. AS