WP/26645/2007 of Ch. Omprakash, Vs The Union of India, on 24 December 2007

COMMON ORDER:

These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners andthey are disposed of through a common order.

The lands in survey Nos.23 to 30, corresponding to new surveyNos.32 to 39, admeasuring about 100 acres, situated at KummarpallyVillage, Dharor Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, were held in patta, by one Mir Thurab Ali Khan. Sarvasri Maddulapalli Anthaiah andChukkaiah, sons of Ramaiah, were recognized as protected tenants.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of the protected tenants.

Turab Ali Khan filed a declaration under the A.P. Land Reforms(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Ceiling Act’)and he has shown the above said lands also in the declaration. TheLand Reforms Tribunal found that the declarant holds lands, in excessof ceiling limits. The order became final and an extent of Acs.91.14guntas of land in the said survey numbers was resumed to theGovernment, under Section 4(1) of the Ceiling Act. It is stated that theland resumed to the Government was assigned to several landlesspoor, including some of the petitioners. Part of the land was effectedby the laying of double line by the South Central Railway.

W.P.No.5449 of 2000 is filed by the petitioners, claimingcompensation for the land, that was utilized in the laying of railwayline. The petitioners state that in recognition of their rights under theA.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (forshort ‘the Tenancy Act’), succession certificate was given to them bythe Mandal Revenue Officer on 16.03.1991, and that they are entitledto be paid compensation for the entire land, or at least, in theproportion, mentioned under the Tenancy Act.

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating that though theancestors of the petitioners were recognized as protected tenants, theland, however, was taken by the Government under the Ceiling Act,and thereby, the rights, if any, of the petitioners, have beenextinguished.

The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 06.03.2003. The respondents filed W.A.No.1772 of 2003. The writ appeal wasallowed on 04.04.2006 and the matter was directed to be heard again. The Division Bench of this Court made certain observations about thelack of consistency and coherence, in the context of implementation ofthe provisions of the Tenancy Act, vis-à-vis the lands in question. Adoubt was expressed as to the propriety of granting succession infavour of the petitioners, even in the absence of proceedings under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act.

The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, has entertained a suo motu revision under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act vis-à-vis theorder dated 16.03.1991, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, underSection 40 of that Act. After issuing notice to the petitioners, hepassed an order, dated 16.03.2007, cancelling the order dated16.03.1991, whereunder succession was granted to the petitioners. W.P.No.26455 of 2007 is filed against it.

Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners,submits that once the ancestors of the petitioners were recognized asprotected tenants, their rights get crystallized and various proceedingsunder the Ceiling Act, in respect of such lands, are untenable in lawand without any consequence. He contends that the Ceiling Act itselfcarves out exception, in respect of the lands that are covered by theTenancy Act. Learned counsel submits that there was absolutely nobasis for the Joint Collector to set aside the order, dated 16.03.1991,since nobody disputed the relationship of the petitioners, with theprotected tenants.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand,submits that the possession of the land was resumed to theGovernment, on the strength of statutory proceedings and thepetitioners did not raise objection at any point of time, though part ofthat very land was assigned to them. He contends that one of theconditions precedent, for grant of succession under Section 40 of theTenancy Act, is that the claimant must be in possession of the land,and once the land was resumed to the Government, there wasabsolutely no basis for granting succession to the petitioners. Hefurther contends that the only forum before which the claim forcompensation can be made is, the one under the Land Acquisition Actand the petitioners cannot canvass their rights through these writpetitions.

It is a matter of record that the lands, referred to above, were held by the ancestors of the petitioners, who were recognized as protectedtenants. Either not being aware of this, or wantonly, the pattadar i.e.Thurab Ali Khan, has shown all these lands in his declaration underthe Ceiling Act. He was held to be having lands in excess of ceilinglimits. Surrender proceedings have ensued, and almost the entireland, as regards which, protected tenancy existed was resumed to theGovernment. The record does not disclose that the petitioners were inpossession of the land, at the relevant point of time.

Be that as it may, not only did the Government resume the land,but also had assigned part of it, to various individuals, including someof the petitioners, and another part of it was utilized in laying therailway line.

Two aspects arise for consideration, in these writ petitions viz.,(a)whether the succession certificate issued infavour of the petitioners is tenable in law; and(a)whether the succession certificate issued infavour of the petitioners is tenable in law; and (b)whether the petitioners are entitled to be paidcompensation over the land utilized by the railways.compensation over the land utilized by the railways.

The petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer with anapplication under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act. The proceedingswere not adversarial in nature, and on being satisfied that theancestors of the petitioners were recognized as protected tenants inrespect of the lands, the Mandal Revenue Officer, issued certificatethrough proceedings, dated 16.03.1991. It does not appear, that theground situation has been taken into account. The Government tookpossession of these lands, in pursuance of the proceedings under theCeiling Act. The legality or otherwise thereof apart, simple grant ofsuccession certificate by itself did not cloth the petitioners, to resumeor claim possession straightaway. Neither any patent illegality, norany fraud was alleged. Mere recognition of an individual, assuccessor of a protected tenant, does not bring about any tangible result, vis-à-vis the land. The legal rights that accrue out of it, have tobe worked out independently. Therefore, even while holding that theorder passed by the Joint Collector on 16.03.2007 is untenable in law,it needs to be clarified, that the petitioners would succeed only to therights, which their predecessors held over the lands, by the time thesuccession came to be granted.

Conclusion

Coming to the second question, the petitioners are not clear as towhether any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and declaration under Section 6 were issued for the entireland.

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, covering an extent of abouttwo acres, is placed. It is not known as to whether the same has beenproceeded with, under the other provisions of that Act. Be that as itmay, whether the protected tenants or even the persons claiming rightsand interest in any other manner, over the acquired land, have to workout their remedies only in the course of award enquiry. If proceedingsunder the Act are not initiated or pending, the affected party has to filea suit for declaration of title and the consequential remedy of paymentof compensation. Therefore, no relief, in the form of a direction forpayment of compensation to the petitioners, can be granted and it isleft open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordancewith law.

Hence, W.P.No.5449 of 2000 is disposed of, leaving it open tothe petitioners to work out their remedies in the award enquiry, if anyproceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated, or pending;or to file a suit in the absence of such proceedings.

W.P.No.26455 of 2007 is partly allowed by setting aside theimpugned order, dated 16.03.2007, but directing that the successiongranted to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, through proceedings dated16.03.1991, shall be limited to the nature of rights, that were held bytheir ancestors as on he date of grant of such succession, vis-à-vis thelands.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Dated:24.02.2009Note:Mark L.R. copy.GJ

____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J.