WP/27905/2005 of H.Sudhakar Rao Vs The JointCollector, Ranga Reddy District on 29 December 2005

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION NO.27905 OF 2005

The petitioners 1 and 2 herein purchased house sites admeasuring 200 Sq.yardseach, and petitioners 3 and 4 purchased house sites admeasuring 400 Sq.yards and300 Sq.yards respectively, in the land comprised in S.Nos.43, 44, 57 and 58,situated at Old Bowenpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It appears theland was allegedly in possession of one Ahmed Gori, a protected tenant entitled torights under A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (forshort, the Act). After his death, respondents 3 to 17 herein filed an application underSection 32(1) and Section 40 of the Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer,Balanagar, for grant of succession as well as restoring possession to them. Secondrespondent herein and fourteen others were shown as persons in possession of the land. The Mandal Revenue Officer after conducting due enquiry allowed theapplication filed by the contesting respondents and directed the Revenue Inspectorto put them in possession under Section 32(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the saidorder dt.4.5.2002, second respondent herein filed an appeal under Section 90 of theAct before the first respondent being Case No.F2/6582/2002. The case was comingup for hearing. On 7.12.2005 the second respondent herein filed an application forwithdrawal of the appeal whereupon the first respondent granted such permissionand dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Be it noted, the petitioners herein wereshown as respondents 28 to 31 in the appeal before the first respondent. Aggrievedby orders of first respondent dt.7.12.2005 dismissing the appeal as withdrawn,present Writ Petition is filed.

It is contended that as the petitioners purchased the property from the secondrespondent for a valuable consideration, and second respondent was contesting theright of respondents 3 to 17 being successors of title of second respondent, thepetitioners ought to have been allowed to step into the shoes of the appellant by thefirst respondent. This Court is afraid, the submission is misconceived.

The dispute before the Mandal Revenue Officer in the application filed underSection 32(1) and 40 of the Act is in relation to the properties in S.No.58 (new)admeasuring Ac.0.29 gts., S.No.43 (new) admeasuring Ac.0.29 gts., S.No.143 (new)admeasuring Ac.1.30 gts. The petitioners 1 and 2 purchased small extents of housesites subsequent to passing of the orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer, whereasthe petitioners 3 and 4 purchased small extents of house sites prior to passing of theorders by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Further, when the orders were passed by firstrespondent, petitioners herein, as respondents 28 to 31 therein, were very muchrepresented by a counsel and they did not raise any objection. Therefore, this WritPetition is misconceived. However, it shall be open to the petitioners toindependently agitate for their rights by filing separate appeals under Section 90 ofthe Act before the first respondent. As and when such appeals are filed, it shall beopen to the first respondent to entertain the appeals and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law after giving notice to all the parties interested in the land.

The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly disposed of.

_______________(V.V.S.RAO, J)29.12.2005

bnr