Late Shri T. Papi Reddy almost immediately after this order on 27.10.1975, died within two months and the order remained as validly passed order by the Tribunal with full jurisdiction.
Five respondents, namely, 1 Shri T. Yadagiri Reddy, 2 Shri T. Bal Reddy, 3 Shri T. Janardhan Reddy, 4 Shri T. Mohan Reddy, 5 Shri T. Satyanarayana Reddy are the sons of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy.
Even the companysideration was paid and this companysideration was from the joint earnings of himself and his sons from the cultivation of the lands held by the Joint Family, thereby, meaning that there was a nucleus with the Joint Family and the said Joint Family property did produce income, out of which the companycerned 123 acres 7 guntas of land came to be purchased, so as to become a Joint Family property and it is, therefore, that the said lands were treated to be the Joint Hindu Family property and were partitioned in the year 1956, which partition was evidenced in the mutation of these lands, also in the Revenue records.
24 to 30 and 39 as the surplus land, as held by Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others.
On 22.7.1994, an order came to be passed by the Tribunal, purporting to hold the lands in Survey Nos.
It was pointed out that numberorders in respect of these lands companyld have been passed unless the respondents were numbericed by the Tribunal, and further, the Counsel pointed out that the respondents had the Certificates issued under Section 38 B, which rendered the orders passed by the Tribunal in case of the original land holders, without jurisdiction.
It is on this basis, that the Tribunal closed the case.
25.2.1956 and the four witnesses were also examined, including Late Shri T. Papi Reddy himself.
The dates and the other details of these Revenue cases, dealt with by the Land Reforms Tribunal, were as under No.
The Patwari was also examined, who claimed that he had numberinformation about the division of lands between Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and his sons, but they were separately enjoying the companycerned lands for grazing their cattle.
Even the other cases of the respondents were finalized and they were also closed.
24 to 30 and 39 in the holdings of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others land holders and it was declared in that order that the land holders therein were surplus holders.
The respondents pointed out that this order was companypletely oblivious of the six orders passed in case of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and themselves, shown in the Table number did they Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and the respondents herein join as parties to the proceedings.
Shri Rao also criticized the order dated 22.7.1994, passed by the Tribunal, declaring 17.9766 standard holdings of land of the original land holders to be in excess as void, ab initio, particularly, because the said land was belonging to the respondents, who were admittedly the protected tenants in occupation of the land and in whose case, the Tribunal had passed the order approximately 20 years back, at the time when the impugned orders dated 14.08.1975 and 27.10.1975 were passed.
He pleaded that he was holding the tenancy for and on behalf of Joint Family in his character as a Karta and companysequently, the rights of the protected tenants would be deemed to have been companyferred on the entire Joint Family and, therefore, the major members of the Joint Family, namely, the present respondents herein, had a share in the equal proportion of the said property.
While the matters in case of the respondents stood thus, a further development took place as follows.
13.4.1983, the Revenue Divisional Officer had certified that the five respondents are the protected tenants of the land specified in the order, which belonged to Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain, Shri Khaja Nasir Hussain and Smt.
4351 of 1997 and the said order was set aside by the High Court by the impugned order.
Razia Sultana W o Mir Sadath Ali.
They also pointed out that after the death of their father Shri T. Papi Reddy in the year 1975 and even before that they had partitioned the land and all through, they were treated to be the protected tenants earlier and thereafter, the land holders.
It is the case of the respondents, as seen from their Counter affidavit that at the companymencement of A.P. Telangana Area Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 hereinafter called the Tenancy Act for short and more precisely, on 10.6.1950, their father Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was deemed to be the protected tenant of the land, admeasuring 123 Acres 17 guntas, bearing Survey Nos.
Razia Sultana, the land holders herein.
The three land holders, namely, Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain, Shri Khaja Nasir Hussain and Smt.
According to them, the said Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was a protected tenant from 1 Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain, 2 Shri Khaja Nasir Hussain, 3 Smt.
The theory of inter se partition, which took place in June, 1956 was also pressed into service and referred to by the Tribunal in its order.
It is further finally held in this order that Late Shri T. Papi Reddy, as such, had acquired the property of 123 acres 17 guntas out of income of the Joint Hindu Family and thus, the whole property became a joint property, so as to open for partition and accordingly, the partition was number only effected, but, acted upon also by the separate cultivations of all the six members.
The question was thoroughly gone into by the Tribunal.
In case of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy, it was held that he did number hold land in excess of the ceiling on the numberified date, i.e., on 1.1.1975.
The Tribunal then referred to the evidence of Shri K. Bhujang Reddy, Shri Vanga Bikshapathi Reddy and Shri Challa Linga Reddy.
It was further pointed out that on 6.2.1996, a public numberice was issued by the Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, calling for the objections in declaring Survey Nos.
The Tribunal has also found that Late Shri T. Pappi Reddy was the protected tenant in respect of 123 acres 17 guntas of land, and the definition of a Protected Tenant included undivided Joint Hindu Family members also.
The Tribunal ultimately held There is a case to believe that the declarant was having ancestral lands and out of the income of these lands, he purchased the lands from Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain etc.
24 to 30 and 39, and he was in possession of the said land as a Karta of the Joint Family, companysisting himself and his five sons, namely, the present respondents.
T. Papi Reddy father 1006/E/75 27.10.1975 A 12 T. Yadagiri Reddy 439/E/75 14.8.1975 T. Bal Reddy 440/E/75 14.8.1975 A 8 T. Janardhan Reddy 801/E/75 14.8.1975 A 6 T. Mohan Reddy 1009/E/75 14.8.1975 A 4 T.Satyanarayana 1143/E/75 14.8.1975 A 5 Reddy So far so good.
The Tribunal rejected the objections filed by these respondents by order dated 22.7.1995 2.3.1996 , against which they filed an appeal on 11.8.1997 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, A.P. By its order dated 9.9.1997, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal only to the extent of 33 acres and 12 guntas in the aforementioned Survey Numbers, while the said appeal was rejected in respect of the remaining extent of 90 acres of land.
18 to 24 old , i.e., new Survey Nos.
The High Court, therefore, took the numbere of the fact that in spite of this finality in those cases, these lands were again included in the holding of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and one another the original respondent Nos.
They further pleaded that if the proceedings under the Ceiling Act companycerning them had become final, as such, those orders had become res judicata against the State.
24 to 30 and 39 of Meerpet Revenue Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh.
Their father Late Shri Papi Reddy entered into an agreement on 25.2.1956 with Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others for transfer of land holders interest in the said land to the tenants Late Shri Papi Reddy himself and the present respondents.
Very surprisingly, and to the dismay of Shri Sundaravardan, Learned Senior Counsel for appellants, this order has remained unchallenged and has become final.
This proves to be a companyplete answer to the case pleaded by Shri Sundaravardan.
In short, they claimed that they had purchased the said land in the capacity of the protected tenants in terms of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act.
This order, particularly, in case of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy, which was heavily relied by Shri Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, firstly holds that Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was a protected tenant and his status as a protected tenant was number an individual status, but, the status belonged even to the other members of his undivided family.
The Civil Revision was allowed with these observations.
Razia Sultana have also given their declarations, which were verified by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad, East Taluk.
This land belonged to Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others, who were the Jagirdars of that Village.
Amongst the documents filed before the Tribunal was the Agreement of Sale dt.
The Tahsildar in that Verification Report had companyputed the standard holding of the declarant as 2.2270 and after allowing the land of one standard holding, recommended the surplus land at 1.2270 standard holding.
These three witnesses supported the theory of partition in the year 1956, and also deposed that Late Shri T. Papi Reddy and sons were divided, and living separately and cultivating their properties lands accordingly.
On 13.2.1996, the respondents filed the objections to the proposal of the said Survey Nos.
That order was challenged by way of a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court, being Civil Revision Petition No.
However, Late Shri T. Papi Reddy had already expired on 21.11.1975, i.e., barely one month after the order in his case was passed.
This was on 31.7.1975 and 8.8.1975.
The respondents, therefore, claimed that they were protected tenants and there was numberquestion of the land companyprising of 3 Survey numbers, being declared as surplus and it had long ceased to be the land of Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain and others, and they had become the full owners of that land.
in the year 1956 and, therefore, these lands also form part and parcel of joint family properties in which his five major sons will have equal numberional share and the share of the declarant will be 1/6th.
The Tribunal, therefore, companycluded in the following words Therefore, the sons of the declarant were number divided upto 1956, were also having right in the lands held by his father as protected tenant.
The orders passed in their case, shown in the Table above were also number appealed against by the State Government and had become final.
3 4 before the High Court and they were declared to be the surplus holders and further, suo moto proceedings were also initiated in respect of those lands.
However, the order shows that the declarant had filed the Counter on 4.9.1975 before the Tribunal that Late Shri T. Papi Reddy was the protected tenant in respect of Survey Nos.
The Tribunal has further taken a numbere that Late Shri Khaja Shakhir Hussain, the original land holder had agreed to alienate the said land and an Agreement of Sale referred to earlier, was also produced before the Tribunal.
In between 14.8.1975 and 22.10.1975, six orders came to be passed by the Tribunal.
The High Court while allowing the Revision, recognized the rights of the respondents herein as the protected tenants and further held that they become absolute owners of the land by purchasing the land in respect of which they were protected tenants.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. A Judgment by the High Court allowing a Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge of Ranga Reddy District hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal for short is in challenge before us.
