AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri E. Kalyan Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. Subash Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5.
The petitioners have questioned the action of the Respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer and the District Collector in B-5128/90 as illegal and arbitrary. Sri R. Subash Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents has raised serious objections to the very maintainability of the above writ petition with respect to the relief as prayed for. According to learned Counsel for the respondents, Sri R. Subash Reddy, no details or particulars have been furnished by the petitioners as to the proceedings questioned by them in the above writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the proceedings in question are one relating to a notice in File B1/5128/90 dated 11-1-1993 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer - Respondent No.2 for evicting respondents 6 to 9 from their dwelling house.
It is thus apparent that what the petitioners have questioned in the above writ petition is a notice calling upon the respondents 6 to 8 as to why they should not be evicted from the dwelling house u/s 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid proceedings u/s 32 initiated by respondents 3 to 5 against respondents 6 to 9 in the above writ petition are wholly without jurisdiction and behind the back of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they (petitioners) are the pattedars of the land in question and that the respondents 3 to 5 had got their names wrongly mutated in revenue records as pattedars pursuant to an ex parts decree in O.S.No.17 of 1971. The ex parts decree in the said suit was set aside at the instance of the petitioners and thereafter the suit O.S.No.17 of 1971. was itself dismissed. It is therefore contended by the petitioners that respondents 3 to 5 are not pattedars and are therefore not entitled to seek eviction of the respondents 6 to 9 who are otherwise the purchasers from the petitioners herein. Such purchasers claiming through petitioners cannot be evicted without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, it was contended. The petitioners, it is stated filed their objections before the 2nd respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer in File B/5128/90 and as no action was taken on the objections filed by the petitioners and apprehending that they would not be afforded an opportunity of being heard, the above writ petition was filed.
Sri R. Subash Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the proceedings in question for possession of the dwelling house is one relatable to the orders passed by the Joint Collector in File No.B4/6667/88 dated 22-10-1990 in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction u/s 90 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. By the said orders of the Appellate Authority - Joint Collector dated 22-10-1990, the respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to possession of the houses and lands which were subject-matter of the proceedings before the Joint Collector by eviction of respondents 6 to 9 who were respondents in the said proceedings. It is further submitted that the order dated 22-10-1990 passed by the Joint Collector was confirmed in Civil Revision Petition No.3609 of 1990 and the respondents 6 to 9 are obliged to deliver possession of the said house to the respondents 3 to 5 herein, It is further submitted that in filing the above writ petition, the petitioners have abused the process of Court.
Before considering the rival contentions, it may be necessary to refer to the orders of the Joint Collector in File No.B4/ 6667/88, dated 22-10-1990. The said proceedings was an appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 5 herein and on remand by High Court in C.R.P.No.2610 of 1987 by orders dated 1-7-1988. The said appeal arose out of an order passed by the Tahsildar in File No.A/2580/82 dated 7-10-1982 dismissing the application for possession filed by respondents 3 to 5 in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.360/1, 360/2, 373/1 and 373/2 and 373/8 and situated at Moulali village, Malkajgiri Mandal.
The Joint Collector in his proceedings dated 22-10-1990 held that K. Satyanarayana (father of respondents 6, 7 and 9 and husband of respondent No. 8) had obtained the lands bearing Sy.Nos.360/1, 360/2, 373 and the dwelling house situated at Moulali on lease from Late Syed Zainullabuddin Khan (father of appellants in proceedings before the Joint Collector and respondents 3 to 5 in the above writ petition) on lease, a certified copy of the Qowlnama was marked Ex.B38. The said late K. Satyanarayana has executed Kabuliatnamas Exs.A1 to A4 and thus obtained the lands on lease from the said Late Sri Zainullabuddin Khan. It was further held that the said K. Satyanarayana was an ordinary tenant of the lands in question and his claim on the basis of alleged agreement of sale was rejected by Court in O.S.No.62 of 1972 as not genuine or valid. The claim of the respondents 6 to 9 that they are entitled to be declared as protected tenants u/s 37-A of the Tenancy Act was also rejected by the High Court in C.R.P.No.2546 of 1987 by orders dated 7-6-1988. It was held as a fact that the tenancy was validly terminated by notice Ex.A10, according to law. It was, therefore, held that the appellants therein (respondents 3 to 5 herein) are entitled to get possession of the lands in question together with the dwelling house constructed thereon and the appeal filed by the appellants therein - respondents 3 to 5 herein was allowed and the orders of the Tahsildar dated 6-10-1982 were consequently set aside. It must also be mentioned here that the petitioners had sought to implead themselves as party respondents to the said appeal before the Joint Collector who rejected their petition. The petitioners did not question the said order rejecting their impleading petition.
However, the respondents 6 to 9 herein preferred C.R.P.No.3609 of 1990, aggrieved against the order passed by the Joint Collector in File No.B4/20781/82 dated 22-10-1990. After contest, the revision petition was dismissed. It may be useful to extract a relevant portion of the said order of the learned single Judge in C.R.P.No.3609 of 1990 dated 27-11-1991 as much stress has been laid thereon by Sri R. Subas Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. The said observations are as under:
"The findings of the Joint Collector are all findings of fact which are passed on considerations of oral and documentary evidence forming part of the record and cannot be questioned in this revisions. The contention of the learned Counsel that the Joint Collector did not follow the directions of this Court in the Revision is without substance. The Joint Collector has elaborately considered the evidence on record and after application of mind, she has arrived at the findings, with which I see no reason to differ.
It is stated by Sri Subash Reddy that suspension of the order of the Joint Collector was refused by this Court and consequently possession of the lands was taken by the respondents. He filed a panchnama to the effect that the lands were already delivered to the respondents. The petitioners wanted sometime for vacating the dwelling house.
If the petitioners are in possession of the house, they are granted four months time for vacating the dwelling house.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. With Costs."
From the above, it is apparent that this Court in C.R.P.No.3609 of 1990 while upholding the orders of the Joint Collector granted four months time to the petitioners therein (respondents 6 to 9 herein) for vacating the dwelling house. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents 3 to 5 have filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for delivery of possession of the dwelling house and the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings by issuing notice in Form-10 in File No.B1/ 5128/90 dated 11-1-1993. These proceedings have been impugned in the above writ petition. The respondents 6 to 9 who are required to deliver up vacant possession of the dwelling house have not filed the above writ petition. Instead, the above writ petition is filed by the persons whose impleading petition was rejected by the Joint Collector in his Proceedings dated 22-10-1990.
Sri E. Kalyan Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are entitled to be heard before the Mandal Revenue Officer and eviction cannot be ordered unless the petitioners objections are first heard and disposed of. I cannot accede to the said contention. The proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer - Respondent No.2 herein in File No.B1-5128/90 are only one for implementation of the orders of eviction passed against respondents 6 to 9 herein as confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3609 of 1990 whereby four months time was granted to respondents 6 to 9 to vacate the dwelling house and deliver up possession to the respondents 3 to 5 herein. The petitioners thus have no locus standi to question the said proceedings. Their application for impleading was rejected by the Joint Collector by orders dated 22-10-1990 and the petitioners did not choose to question the said order refusing to implead them in the said proceedings and therefore they cannot now allowed to be heard before the Mandal Revenue Officer in the proceedings which are in the nature of execution proceedings for implementation of the orders of eviction already passed and as confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3609 of 1990.
In the view that I have taken, as above, the various other contentions urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the petitioners claim of ownership in respect of the land in question do not merit consideration nor is it necessary for this Court to consider the various proceedings which have been taken earlier by the parties before various Civil Courts for declaration of title or for mutation of their names in the Revenue records.
The above Writ Petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs which arc assessed at Rs.1,000/-