HC: Revenue Officials Can’t Alter Protected Tenant’s Claim on Asset
Hyderabad: Justice Sambasivarao Naidu of the Telangana High Court held that in the absence of proof that a protected tenant has surrendered his Protected Tenancy Certificate, the revenue authority cannot alter his claim to property. The judge allowed a Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy at the instance of Makkan Lakshmamma and three others. They filed the Revision Petition challenging the order of the Joint Collector who at the instance of Abdul Gafoor and seven others had altered the findings of the tahsildar, Nacharam mandal of Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner moved the tahsildar as the legal representative of the original protected tenant late Jangaiah. They have also sought for restoration of possession over the above said lands by filing civil suits and grant of succession certificate. Both the suits were decreed in their favour. The tahsildar came to the conclusion that the petitioners referred above are legal heirs of original protected tenants by name Maddi Jangaiah and Makkan Jangaiah as such they are entitled to a succession of Protected Tenancy rights over the lands to an extent of Ac.14.20 guntas in Sy. No. 50 and Ac. 19.39 guntas in Sy. No. 51 of Kurmidda Village.
The said order was successfully challenged by the private set of respondents before the Joint Collector. Justice Sambasivarao Naidu pointed out that when the said two persons were shown as protected tenants in view of Section 40 of the Act, 1950, it is quite clear that all the rights of protected tenants are heritable. Whereas according to Section 4O(2) provides that in case of the death of protected tenants, his/her legal representatives shall be entitled to hold the tenancy rights.
“The documents filed by the petitioners clearly show that they were declared as legal heirs of the deceased protected tenants. Though the Joint Collector held that the said protected tenant was not subsisting, absolutely there is no record to conclude that the said protected tenants have surrendered the PT rights. If really such surrender had happened, the respondents could have placed enough record in support of the said surrender,” the judge reasoned and thereby protected the claim of the petitioner over land in about 33 acres in Kurmidda Village of Yacharam Mandal.
The judge further declared that it is not necessary that the protected tenant should have been in physical possession on the date of notification under Section 38 (e)(1) i.e., January 01, 1973. It is sufficient if he continues to hold the status of a protected tenant as on notified date, even if not in physical possession and he satisfied the requirements of Section 38 (7) of the Act.
