Claim to succession cannot be decided by a Revenue Tribunal: Telangana High Court
The claim of petitioners to succeed to tenancy rights of their ancestor cannot be decided by the Tahsildar and appropriate remedy from the civil court must be obtained. This was decreed by Hon’ble Justice Sri P. Naveen Rao in the case of B. Malla Reddy Vs. The state of Telangana [WRIT PETITION Nos.14924 AND 15031 of 2021] on the 27th of July 2021, before the Hon’ble High Court at Telangana.
The brief facts of the case are, petitioners claim that they are lineal descendants of Ram Reddy, who was protected tenant of land to an extent of Acs.4.12 guntas. According to petitioners, late Ram Reddy was having four children, late B.Venkat Reddy, late B.Anti Reddy, late B.Janga Reddy and late B.Ram Reddy. Eldest son late B. Venkat Reddy died at very young age. Late B.Anti Reddy being the next eldest son, his name was recorded as protected tenant after the death of Ram Reddy. Petitioners are sons of B.Kista Reddy. Petitioners claim that on the above extent of land, they are also entitled to be shown as protected tenants and to secure Section 38-E certificate. Claiming so, they made an application in May, 2021, acknowledged by the office of the District Collector on 17.05.2021. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.
The counsel for the petitioners submit that, late B.Anthi Reddy and late Talla Antha Goud were surviving elder family members on the day when protected tenancy register was opened and therefore instead of reflecting the names of all sons, for convenience only the eldest surviving sons of protected tenants were shown. Merely because the elder surviving sons names are reflected in the records, it cannot be said that they alone are to be treated as protected tenants and the claims of other family members as protected tenants cannot be ignored. The counsel for the respondents submitted that, whether petitioners are to be treated as lineal descendants and entitled to be recognized as protected tenants along with late B.Anti Reddy and late Anta Goud, respectively, and that those two persons are not entitled to claim exclusive right to succeed, are matters to be adjudicated by the civil Court and unless and until civil Court gives a declaration in favour of petitioners, the revenue authorities cannot record their names as protected tenants.
The court heard the submissions of both the counsels and observed the issue in light of section 40 and 99 of the Telangana Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. A reading of these sections revealed, “From a plain reading of Section 99 of the Act, 1950 it is apparent that jurisdiction of civil Court is 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.” The court also relied on the judgement in Syed Abdul Majeed and others Vs Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and others 2006 (5) ALD 348 wherein, it was held that “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 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.”
Keeping this in mind, the court decreed that, “Even assuming, what is contended by petitioners is true and Section 38-E certificates were not issued to those two persons and lands in issue were not alienated, no third party interests are created, petitioners have to first assert their right to succeed to tenancy of their ancestors on the subject lands by availing the civil law remedy, if so available. Until and unless the Civil Court grants the declaration holding that petitioners are entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights on land, hitherto, standing in the name of protected tenant, they cannot go to the next stage. The Writ Petitions are misconceived.” The writ petitions were dismissed.