On the demise of Nawaz Jung Bahadur, one of his sons Mohd.
Bala was a lessee for three years.
Accordingly, Bala became a pattedar in place of Hamid Ali Khan in respect of the suit land.
On receipt of the said application dated 16.12.1998, the matter was referred by the Tribunal to the Mandal Revenue Officer M.R.O. , who reported that there was numberprotected tenants in respect of the suit lands and that Balas name was never recorded as protected tenant in respect of the said lands.
42/62.
Initially it was for one year.
In other words, the appellant herein invoked the said Act for the first time on 16.12.1998 though Section 37 A stood incorporated in the tenancy law by way of an Amendment Act, 1955, which came into force on 12.3.1956.
63, 68, 69 and 70 admeasuring 69 acres 10 guntas in village Madhapur of Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy in Andhra Pradesh.
This kaulanama was executed by one Hamid Ali Khan son of Md. Nawaz Jung.
The permission was obtained from Deputy Collector on 13.11.1959.
This sale deed dated 23.11.1959 in favour of Bala stood executed after the vendor Hamid Ali Khan obtained permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950.
42/62 filed in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
This was in 1935.
Bala died in 1975.
In the revenue records for the year 1972 73, the name of Bala was shown as pattedar.
One such tenant, Boddam Bala Mallaiah hereinafter referred to as Bala was the cultivating tenant in respect of Survey Nos.
Bala was the paternal uncle of the appellant herein.
In the said application, it was alleged for the first time that late Bala was a protected tenant.
The appellant is the nephew of Bala, however, appellant claims that Bala was cultivating the above lands with his two brothers, namely, Agaiah father of the appellant herein and Komaraiah.
63, 68, 69 and 70 of village Madhapur admeasuring 69 acres 10 guntas as indicated by Khasra Pahani for the year 1954 55.
The alienation in favour of Bala was during the pendency of the suit for partition of the ancestral properties belonging to Nawaz Jung Bahadur.
In the plaint it was stated that Item 6 was in possession of the tenants.
He was the paternal uncle of the appellant herein.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sada v. The Tahsildar, Utnoor reported in AIR 1988 AP 77.
The important point to be numbered is that the plaintiffs in the said suit did number allege Bala to be a protected tenant.
In fact, as stated above, he became a pattedar prior to 1.1.1973.
Subsequently, the vendees K. Sambasiva Rao and ors.
who claimed title through the LRs.
Hamid Ali Khan sold his share to Bala on 23.11.1959 through a registered sale deed.
of Bala and his two bothers instituted another suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein.
This suit was dismissed on 8.6.1998.
The partition suit referred to above filed in 1935 renumbered in 1962 stood decided on 24.11.1970.
Pursuant to the preliminary decree, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the final decree proceedings vide I. A. No.
Thereupon, a Civil Revision Petition was filed by the appellant herein under section 91 of the Act which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 16.4.2001 which is number under challenge before this Court.
Ali Khan filed a suit for partition of the properties of late Nawaz Jung Bahadur.
854/84 in suit No.
It was further reported that Bala was the pattedar, that he was cultivating the lands as pattedar and that he was cultivating as Owner under the above sale deed dated 23.11.1959.
He was inducted in the aforesaid lands under a kaulanama dated 1.3.1953.
Even his LRs.
He, during his lifetime, did number claim to be a protected tenant.
of Bala and his 2 brothers instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein being suit No.
By the said application, the appellant also asked for an Ownership Certificate under Section 38 E of the A. P. Telangana Area Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 the Act as amended from time to time.
of Bala and his two brothers filed one more application before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 which was dismissed by the Special Court vide Order dated 13.5.1997.
It further stated that Bala will be sole cultivator and that without the permission of the landlord, Bala will number include any other cultivator.
294/93 which was dismissed on 8.6.1998.
The scheduled property was Item 6 of Schedule B in Suit No.
Having failed in the above proceedings, an application was moved on 16.12.1998 before the Tribunal R.D.O. , Ranga Reddy Distt.
Bala had two brothers, namely, Agaiah father of the appellant and Komariah.
The LRs.
This application was moved by the present appellant.
It stated that on expiry of the stipulated period the tenant will have numberright over the land in possession.
It was renewed each year.
He died in 1975.
On 28.11.1993 the said Commissioner came to the suit site to measure the lands.
KAPADIA, J. Nawaz Jung Bahadur was a pattedar of the lands inter alia in Survey Nos.
At that stage the LRs.
did number claim that Bala was a protected tenant in respect of the said land, therefore, for the first time, the nephew of Bala, the appellant herein, sought a declaration that Bala was a protected tenant under Section 37 A and accordingly claimed an Ownership Certificate under Section 38 E of the Act after a lapse of more than 40 years.
