P. Sree Sudha, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.07.2017 passed in Case No. F2/5685/2016 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the order dated 29.08.2015 passed in Case No. G/1804/2012 on the file of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, is set aside.
2. The revision petitioners herein are the appellants before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners herein filed an application dated 04.04.2015 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 89 of the A.P. (TA) Tenancy Act, 1950 (for short, ' the of 1950') before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, seeking them to implead in Case No. G/1804/2012. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed counter stating that the petitioners herein are the purchasers of the agricultural land from the pattadars in Sy. No. 146 (old) corresponding to new Sy. No. 182 admeasuring Ac.3.05 guntas situated within the limits of Farooqnagar Village and that the petitioners are alleged purchasers of tenancy land from the landlord through registered agreement-cum-general power of attorney bearing No. 8131 of 2006 to an extent of Ac.0.37½ guntas and document No. 6101 of 2004 to an extent of Ac.0.19 guntas and that the said purchase is illegal, not a valid transfer and hence sought for dismissal of the petition.
3. The Tahsildar after hearing arguments advanced by the both the learned counsel observed that the issue pertains to tenancy and with regard to restoration of possession of tenancy land under Section 32(1) of Tenancy Act and whereas the petitioners contend that they purchased the land in the above survey numbers and it is violative of Sections 30(1) and 38(D) of the Tenancy Act and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in KOTAIAH Vs. THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE BAPTIST CHURCHES (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 1989 SC 1753 [LQ/SC/1989/352] , no right flows under the same. The rights of the third parties cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act as the petitioners-appellants are neither necessary nor proper parties and accordingly the petition filed by them was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners-appellants preferred the appeal before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector after considering the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel in detail, observed that the order passed by the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, suffers from procedural and material irregularity contemplated under Section 40(1) & (2) of the of 1950 and the Mandal Revenue Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of law and thus, the order was set aside and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry in the first phase under Section 40 of theof 1950 to ascertain who are the legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant namely Yerukali Sayanna and then pass appropriate orders under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 for restoration of possession over the appeal schedule land to the extent of vacant land on the ground not covered by the dwelling houses. The Joint Collector further observed in his order that the Tahsildar should inspect the entire land in Sy. No. 146 (old) new Sy. No. 182 and get demarcate by the Mandal Surveyor along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector and see that how much area is vacant on the ground and how much area is covered by dwelling houses and that this exercise should be done under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 and moreover the Tenancy Act is not applicable to non-agricultural lands and confined only to agricultural land, but in this case no such permission was obtained by the parties as per Section 70 of the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317F before conversion of the land as non-agricultural land and carving out into house site plots without obtaining orders from the District Collector under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1317F and Rules 1950 and also from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned under the provisions of NALA Act, 2006. With the above observations the Joint Collector disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners-appellants and the counter claim filed by the respondents. The Joint Collector also observed that the case law cited by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
5. The petitioners-appellants would submit that the Joint Collector erred in observing that the petitioners cannot intervene in a dispute between Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 on the one hand and Respondent Nos. 16 to 27 on the other hand forgetting the fact that the petitioners-appellants stepped into the shoes of Respondent No. 16 to 28 as purchasers under a registered sale deed. The petitioners would further assert that Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 claimed to have purchased part of the land in Sy. No. 182 which was plotted and being cultivated and that the other part of the land is also plotted and not cultivated and hence the provisions of the Tenancy Act do not apply. The petitioners would also assert that the Joint Collector erred in remitting the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer since the respondent Nos. 1 to 15 carried the matter in a revision before this Court vide C.R.P. No. 1910 of 2010 and wherein this Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction to conduct denovo enquiry. As Yerukali family got eviction orders, Manne family filed appeal and when it was dismissed, they approached the High Court by way of a revision and got the matter remanded. But it was wrongly mentioned in page No. 15 para No. 12 of the C.R.P. that there are many factual errors in the order of the Joint Collector because the arguments were heard on 18.02.2017 and order was pronounced on 15.07.2017 i.e., after five months. The petitioners herein would also assert that Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed application for restoration of possession, which was dismissed on merits and it amounts to res judicata, but it was not considered by the Joint Collector, and further Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 did not plead in their petition when they were dispossessed. The petitioners-appellants would also assert that as per the decision reported in PADALA PENTAIAH Vs. THE JOINT COLLECTOR 2013 (1) ALT 384 it was held that when there is no plea as to the date of possession, the petition under Section 32 of theof 1950 is not maintainable, but in the case on hand, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and the decisions were ignored by the Joint Collector. The petitioners would also aver that since the third party interest is involved in the case, even if the tenancy is true, tenant cannot seek recovery of possession after long lapse of time as held by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in PONNALA NARSING RAO Vs. NALLOLLA PANTAIAH (1998) 9 SCC 183, [LQ/SC/1997/1225] BHEEMAJI DAWOOD Vs. MADICHETTY RACHAIAH 2004 (3) ALD 798 [LQ/TelHC/2004/441] and A. NARASIMHA Vs. A. KRISHNA 2005 (5) ALD 9 [LQ/TelHC/2005/493] , but the appellate authority ignored the above case law. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed written arguments on 18.02.2017 and also advanced oral arguments before the Joint Collector. In view of the remand order and findings of the Joint Collector, the petitioners herein cannot pursue any further proceedings as Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 on the one hand and Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 on the other have already compromised the matter and in such an event the petitioners will sustain loss and hence the order of the Joint Collector that they have no locus standi is not correct, and therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the order.
6. The revision petitioners filed appeal on 30.09.2015 before the Joint Collector under Section 90(3) of theof 1950 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.23 guntas in Sy. No. 146 (old) corresponding new Sy. No. 182 at Farooqnagar Village and Mandal of former Mahaboobnagar District. The petitioners-appellants herein filed separate petition under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 5 CPC along with an affidavit of the first petitioner-appellant for grant of interim stay of execution and operation of the impugned order under appeal dated 14.09.2015 on the file of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, in case No. G/1804/2012. Interim orders were granted by suspending the operation of the orders till further orders in respect of land to an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas at Farooqnagar Village and the case is posted for hearing on 19.12.2015. Interim orders were granted on 01.10.2015; lower court record was called for and posted the matter to 30.11.2015. The ninth respondent filed counter on 19.12.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants filed vakalat on 24.12.2016 and also filed their written arguments on 18.02.2017. Due to formation of new districts in the state of Telangana in the month of November, 2016 Farooqnagar Division, Farooqnagar Mandal and Village was transferred from Mahaboobnagar District to Ranga Reddy District and a separate division known as Farooqnagar Division was created and all the files were transferred from the Collectorate, Mahaboobnagar District to the Collectorate, Ranga Reddy District, and hence notices afresh were issued on 24.11.2016 with a direction to appear on 24.12.2016. Accordingly, the matter came up for hearing on 18.02.2017.
7. The claim of the petitioners-appellants and the respondents herein is summarised hereunder for the sake of convenience:
CLAIM OF PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS:
(i) The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, in an order dated 29.08.2015 directed delivery of possession of the land to an extent of Acs.3.05 guntas and it was served on the petitioners-appellants on 22.09.2015. Respondents Nos. 16 to 28 are not actually in possession of the appeal schedule land and petitioners-appellants are in possession but they were not made parties before the Tahsildar and without impleading them the orders were passed by the Tahsildar and as such the petitioners-appellants filed an appeal.
(ii) Predecessors of Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 namely Anajaiah and others claimed to be the legal heirs of one Yerukali Sayanna and they claimed that they are the protected tenants of the land in Sy. No. 146 (old) corresponding to the new Sy. No. 182 in an extent of Ac.5.03 guntas. They filed application before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, in file No. G/3602/1996 along with the petition under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 against Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 seeking restoration of possession of Ac.3.05 guntas of land in Sy. No. 182 exclusive of Ac.2.22 guntas of land purchased by one Yerukala Ramulu and they alleged that they were illegally evicted from the said land during the enquiry by the Tahsildar and that the plea of Anajaiah-predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 had taken plea that one Yerukala Ramulu son Yerukala Sayanna purchased the tenancy land to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas under a registered sale deed and carved out the same into residential plots and houses and they were dispossessed from an area of Ac.3.05 guntas by Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 and thus the legal heirs of said Yerukala Sayanna are entitled for recovery of possession of the remaining area of Ac.3.05 guntas.
(iii) The contesting respondents namely Manne Kistaiah, Smt. Anajamma and others ie., Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 filed an application stating that Yerukala Sayanna and Manne Venkaiah are joint protected tenants of the land in Sy. No. 182 and after the death of Yerukala Sayanna, his share to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas was purchased by his son Yerukala Ramulu under registered deed and the balance area of the land has been purchased by Manne Venkaiah and after his death his legal heirs late Manne Ramulu were in possession of the said land, and therefore, the question of restoration of land to the legal heirs of Yerukala Sayanna does not arise. The claim of the Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 i.e., Manne Kistaiah and Smt. Anajamma and others is that Yerukali Anajaiah and others are not the legal heirs of Yerukali Sayanna and they have to establish their relationship in a civil Court as the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of succession. They further submitted that the land has been converted into non-agricultural land and hence the proceedings under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 cannot be entertained.
(iv) The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, in file No. B/3602/1996 dated 05.03.2004 observed that Yerukali Ramulu purchased Ac.2.20 guntas and Manne Ramulu S/o. Manne Venkaiah also purchased the remaining land and have been in possession of the balance area of the land. As per the entries in khasra pahani 1954-55 the names of Yerukali Yelladu @ Yellaiah and Manne Venkaiah have been shown as possessors of the said land but the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, directed for eviction of the members of Manne family and as such they filed appeal before the Joint Collector, which was dismissed and there upon they approached this Court in C.R.P. No. 1910 of 2010, which was allowed on 19.04.2011 and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal.
(v) Manne family ie., Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 filed a detailed counter opposing the claim of Yerukali family. As per khasra phani 1954-55 Yerukali Yelladu @ Yellaiah and Manne Venkaiah were shown as protected tenants and occupants over the said land and that the share of the land held by Manne family and possession of Manne Ramulu was sold out and it was converted into house plots and constructions were also taken up on the ground and therefore it is no more an agricultural land. Admittedly, Manne family sold away their patta land to the third parties and third party interest is also involved in this case and hence the petition under Section 32(1) of theis not maintainable as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since the date of dispossession was not mentioned by Yerukali family in the appeal, no relief can be granted to them.
(vi) In a counter filed by the respondents they stated that Yerukali Venkataiah S/o. Sayanna initiated proceedings in the year 1984 for recovery of possession of the land in file No. A5/1510/1984 but in his statement dated 26.09.1984 he admitted that Yerukali Ramulu is the son of the protected tenant and he was in possession over an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas of the land and the remaining land has been in possession of Manne Ramulu since a long time and Yerukali Venkaiah has no right to the balance land and thus Manne family members who are Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 opposed the claim of main petitioners before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal. Thus the Manne family admitted that the sale of their portion of the land to various persons and those purchasers have plotted the said land and it is no more an agricultural land.
(vii) Original owner and pattadar of the land namely Smt. Mukthar Banu and the purchasers from her viz., Manne Ramulu and others sold an area of Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy. No. 146 (old) in favour of the first petitioner-first appellant under an agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide document No. 6101 of 2004 and also sold an area of Ac.0.37½ guntas in the same survey number in his favour under an agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide document No. 8131 of 2006. Subsequently the first petitioner-first appellant sold the said land in favour of the second petitioner-second appellant under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 18929 of 2006 dated 29.09.2006 and 19029 of 2006 dated 17.04.2006 and thus the second petitioner-second appellant because absolute owner and is in possession of the land and in fact they developed the land and converted them into house site pattas and sold them to others and third parties are in possession of the plots purchased by them and they have also constructed their houses. The second petitioner-second appellant got mutation orders from the revenue officers, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to him. Even though Manne family sold the land in favour of the petitioners-appellants and in view of the litigation between these respondents inter se with Yerukali and Manne families, the petitioners-appellants have associated with Manne family and spent their money for litigation. When they came to know that there was collusion between Yerukali and Manne family members to deprive their rights, they filed an application before the Tahsildar to implead them, but the same was rejected on 29.08.2015 and a compromise petition filed by the respondents inter se was allowed on 14.09.2015 and the Tahsildar directed for delivery of possession to an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy. No. 182. In fact Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 are not in possession of the said land as the land was already converted into house sites and most of the purchasers constructed their houses and as such both the orders of rejection were passed at the same time with different dates but the order dated 29.08.2015 was served on the petitioners-appellants on 22.09.2015 and the other order did not come out immediately and the petitioners-appellants challenged both the orders separately. The petitioners-appellants further stated that the order of the Tahsildar dated 29.08.2015 is illegal and void and it was passed without giving opportunity to their counsel and without jurisdiction. There is no collusive finding on the claim of Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 as they are tenants of the land. Unless the tenancy is proved, the Tahsildar cannot hold the sales in favour of the petitioners-appellants herein as void.
(viii) The main issue in the petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 is whether their predecessor is a protected tenant in Sy. No. 182 over an area of Ac.5.23 guntas. It was admitted in earlier proceedings Yerukala Sayanna and Manne Venkaiah were joint protected tenants. Yerukali Ramulu purchased the share of Yerukali Sayanna to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas under a registered sale deed and the balance area Ac.3.05 guntas is in possession of the purchasers from Manne Venkaiah and therefore the question of restoration of possession to an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas to Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 does not arise. Unless these matters are settled on the point of jurisdiction and eviction of Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 was ordered, restoration of possession in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 cannot be ordered. He further contended that the Tahsildar dismissed his application on the ground that the sales in favour of the petitioners-appellants is not valid since tenancy lands cannot be sold and that the said lands are no more covered by any protected tenancy rights. The order is without jurisdiction as there is no finding about the tenancy and the finding given in the absence of necessary parties is null and void. The petitioners-appellants further stated that Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 having sold the property to the petitioners-appellants have no right to compromise the matter with Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and hence the order passed on such compromise by the Tahsildar is illegal and void as the same is affecting the rights of the petitioners-appellants. The petitioners-appellants would further state that the affidavit filed by Mukthar Banu is not valid in the eye of law as the original owners including Mukthar Banu had already parted with their title in favour of others including the petitioners-appellants vide document No. 6101 of 2004 dated 30.08.2004. The petitioners-appellants would also contend that in a counter filed by the Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 they did not mention their relationship with Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 with late Yerukali Sayanna which was disputed. The petitioners-appellants further stated that when the second petitioner-second appellant applied for copy of pahani for the land in Sy. No. 182, the Tahsildar issued Memo No. G/2458/2014 dated 20.10.2014 intimating that mee seva certificate will not be generated in respect of the lands in which possession column is recorded as house site plots and thus the land is no more agricultural land and the of 1950 has no application and hence the impugned orders under appeal are nullity. The first petitioner-first appellant gave a complaint on 29.10.2014 to the Sub-Inspector of Police stating that there is a disturbance of boundary stones by Yerukali family members and FIR No. 482 of 2014 dated 29.10.2014 has been registered and another FIR against Yerukali Nandu and others in FIR No. 479 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014. The first petitioner-first appellant filed an application before the Tahsildar on 29.10.2014 to direct M/s. Yerukali Nandu and Respondent Nos. 11 to 14 to restrain the said respondents but the Tahsildar knowing fully well about the rights of the petitioners-appellants, rejected their implead application. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 have not proved that they are the protected tenants over the land and Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 having sold the lands to the petitioners-appellants cannot collusively enter into a compromise and hence the orders are illegal and void.
CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENTS:
(i) As per the version of the seventh respondent, in the counter filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 15 he admitted that an area of Ac.2.20 guntas of land was purchased by Yerukali Ramulu S/o. Sayanna in his individual capacity. The petitioners-appellants got their names entered in the revenue records in furtherance of the sale deeds but claimed that the sale deeds are not valid under Sections 38-D of theof 1950. Respondents stated that there is no delivery of possession to the petitioners-appellants under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and it has no relevance to the facts of the case. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 in their counter stated that the Tahsildar rightly rejected the implead petitions and the lands were also converted into non-agricultural use by making the same into house site plots. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 under the order dated 14.09.2015 have not been put into possession of the land and that the lands have been included in the Shadnagar Municipality and a part of this land was converted towards the house site plots and some of the purchasers have also constructed houses and yet Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 claims that the land is still agricultural land and Section 102(e) of theof 1950 is not applicable. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 did not speak when they were dispossessed and as such their application cannot be entertained and there is no cause of action, but the Tahsildar without considering the same mechanically allowed the application for restoration of possession to Respondent Nos. 1 to 15. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 are the legal representatives of Yerukali Sayanna who was the protected tenant over the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.5.23 guntas. They filed an application before the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, in File No. B/3602/1996 under Section 31(1) of theof 1950. Yerukali Ramulu S/o. Yerukali Sayanna in his individual capacity purchased an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas under registered sale deed and divided the said land into plots. Manne Venkataiah is not a co-tenant along with Yerukali Sayanna. Yerukali Sayanna alone is recorded as protected tenant. The legal heirs of Manne Vankaiah never challenged correction of the name of Venkataiah in the tenancy records pertaining to the subject matter of the land and it attained finality. Manne Ramulu S/o. Venkataiah never purchased the subject land from Mukthar Banu at any point of time. The petitioners-appellants are well aware of the fact of pendency of cases before the Revenue Authorities under the tenancy Act, but taking advantage of illiteracy of the respondents got entered their names in the revenue records. They never purchased an area of Ac.37 guntas of land and Ac.0.19 guntas of land and the documents are created only to usurp subject matter of the lands. The vendor of the petitioners-appellants has no right and title over the subject land and therefore any alienation made by third parties is without having any title. It is a settled law that one who has no title cannot pass any title, even if registered document is executed and as such the execution of the said sale deeds in favour of the petitioners-appellants is void and therefore their claim for possession is not valid and the alleged transfer of property in favour of them is hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and also hit by Section 38-D of theof 1950 as the same were obtained by playing fraud on Respondent Nos. 16 to 28.
(ii) When the case was remanded by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1910 of 2010 dated 19.04.2011 the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, issued notices to all the respondents and proceeded with the enquiry. The petitioners-appellants also filed an application under Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead them. But the Tahsildar dismissed the same stating that the purchase of tenancy land itself is in violation of Sections 30 and 38 ofof 1950 and the third party rights cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 32(1) of theof 1950. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and Respondent Nos. 16 to 27 including respondent No. 28 have settled the subject matter outside the Court and filed a compromise petition to that effect under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC before the Tahsildar, Shadnagar. Thereupon, the Tahsildar passed an order on 14.09.2015 and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Shadnagar, under the cover of panchanama delivered possession, after due notice to the petitioners-appellants the Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 on 29.01.2015 but the petitioners-appellants suppressed the facts and filed this application. The allegations made against Mandal Revenue Inspector, Shadnagar, evicting the purchasers of the plot holders including those who have constructed houses is a blatant lie and construction of houses in the land of Yerukali Ramulu is different one from the subject matter of the land. The respondents further stated that no notification, which is mandatory under Section 102(e) of theof 1950 is not issued by the Government at any point of time reserving the said land for urban and non-agricultural activity. Mere inclusion of agricultural land within the municipal limits does not affect the purview of the Tenancy Act. The petitioners-appellants were never in possession of the suit petition schedule land to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of respondents and no irreparable loss would cause to the petitioners-appellants. The stay granted on 30.09.2015 became infructuous in view of delivery of possession contemplated under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 under the cover of panchanama on 29.09.2015 by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the third party rights cannot be adjudicated under Section 32(1) of theand thus the petitioners-appellants have no locus standi to participate in the appeal proceedings and also in tenancy cases before the Tenancy Tribunal. As per the final tenancy register of Farooqnagar Village, Shadnagar Mandal, for the year 1950 one Sri Khader Ali Khan and others have been recorded as Maqtedars and owners and the name of Yerukali Sayeega @ Sayanna was recorded as protected tenant but in this case Sri Anjaiah filed an application under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, stating that he is the lineal descendant of the original protected tenant of Yerukali Sayanna in an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas and requested for restoration of possession of the subject land, upon which, the Tahsildar in an order dated 05.03.2004 in File No. B/3602/1996 allowed the relief in part and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to deliver vacant physical possession of the petition schedule land to the petitioners excluding the land covered by houses, if any, constructed on the petition schedule land. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tahsildar, Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar. The Joint Collector after hearing the arguments and after conducting an enquiry passed an order dated 20.07.2007 in Case No. F1/IA-01/2004 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, for de nova enquiry.
(iii) Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed a petition before the Tahsildar claiming that their ancestor Manne Venkaiah was a protected tenant and continued his possession but by inadvertence his name was not recorded in the final protected tenancy register and only the name of Yerukali Sayanna was recorded as protected tenant under Sections 34, 35 and 37 of theof 1950. Yerukali Sayanna never cultivated the land and he had surrendered his tenancy rights and never claimed his tenancy rights over the petition schedule land earlier and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land, but the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, in File No. G/5756/2008 dismissed the said application on 30.05.2009 with the observation that Manne Venkaiah is not the protected tenant as per the final tenancy register of Farooqnagar village for the year 1950 and the petitioners therein and their ancestors failed to take steps under Section 24(1) of theof 1950 seeking correction of entries and also correction of the name of Venkaiah and as per the relevant revenue records the name of Yerukali Sayanna is recorded as protected tenant and he never surrendered his tenancy rights as contemplated under Section 19(1) of theof 1950.
(iv) Aggrieved by the said order Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed an appeal under Section 90 of theof 1950 before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, in Case No. F1/09/2009 and the Joint Collector, confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar on 17.04.2010. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed revision before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1910 of 2010 and it was allowed by this Court and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for conduct of de nova enquiry by issuing notices to all the parties. Accordingly the parties appeared in person and filed written statements. During the pendency of the case before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, the petitioners-appellants and respondents ie., respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and 16 to 28 filed a compromise petition on 25.07.2015 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and accepted the following terms and conditions:
(i) To declare that Yerukali Sayanna as the protected tenant over the petition schedule land in the parties of the first being lineal descendents of the protected tenants are legally entitled to claim the rights under the Tenancy Act.
(ii) To declare that, parties of the first part as encroachers over the suit land.
(iii) To declare that, parties of the Second part do not have any right, title interest on the subject land.
(iv) To declare that the parties of the Second part have no claim against any of the legal heirs of the parties of the First part in respect of the petition schedule land.
(v) And the parties of the Second part by this Compromise have entirely have given up, all their rights and ownership including physical possession of the subject land to the parties of the First part.
8. During the pendency of the case before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, Mukthar Banu alleged to be the pattadar of the land filed an affidavit on 30.07.2015 stating that she was authorised by the legal representatives of the original pattadar in an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas. But the original pattadar Khader Ali Khan has no right as the subject land is covered by tenancy. She has objection whatsoever for compromise between the legal heirs of protected tenants and the occupants of the land before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, accepted this petition as part of the compromise between the parties. As per the revenue records and final tenancy record of Farooqnagar village, Yerukali Sayanna is recorded as protected tenant and his name is also recorded as cultivator as per the entries recorded in the pahanis for the year 1952-53 to 1981-82 and thereafter the name of Yerukali Ramulu and Manne family was shown in cultivation and occupation columns of the pahanies. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 claimed before the Tahsildar that they are the successors-in-interest of Yerukali Sayanna. There is inter se dispute between the petitioners-appellants and respondents i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and 16 to 28. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, in an order dated 14.09.2015 concluded that no succession certificate is required to be issued as contemplated under Section 40 of thein favour of the petitioners therein ie., Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and they are the legal heirs of Yerukali Sayanna and they are entitled for restoration of possession and allowed the compromise petition and also directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to demarcate the land to an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas out of Ac.5.01 guntas and to restore possession of the said land. The present case is outcome of the order of the Tahsildar dated 04.09.2015. There is a triangular contest between the petitioners-appellants and Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and 16 to 28. On examination of file No. G/1804/2012 and the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 1910 of 2010 and the relevant records there is no dispute that the land in Sy. No. 146 (old) corresponding to Sy. No. 182 (new) is comprising of an area of Ac.5.23 guntas situated at Farooqnagar village and the name of Yerukali Sayanna is recorded as protected tenant in the final tenancy register of 1950. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 claimed that they are the successors-in-interest of Yerukali Sayanna. The Tahsildar instead of sanctioning the succession as contemplated under Section 40(1) and (2) of thehas straight away resorted to action under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 for restoration of possession in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 15. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, without deciding the legal representatives of the protected tenants is not supposed to open pandora box and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector without enquiry into who are the legal descendants of the protected tenant. The person who are claiming as legal descendants have to file a civil suit before the competent civil Court to declare them as the legal heirs of the protected tenant and after the decree they have to file an application before the Tahsildar for grant of succession of the tenancy rights as contemplated under Section 40(1) and (2) of theand then the Tahsildar after conducing enquiry and after issuing notices to the recorded pattadar has to pass appropriate orders either by sanctioning the succession or rejecting the same. The scheme of the Tenancy Act is to regulate the relationship between the land holder and the protected tenant and the scope of the revenue enquiry is confined to infringe the relationship of landlord and tenant. If there is dispute between protected tenant and the third party purchaser, it seizes to be a tenancy dispute and assumes civil nature and falls outside the province of revenue authorities and it has to be decided by the civil Court. The parties other than the land holder and tenant has no locus standi before the revenue authorities. As Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 are third party purchasers, they have no locus standi in the pendency proceedings and the appeal is not maintainable and they are at liberty to adjudicate before competent civil Court. There cannot be compromise between the protected tenant and the legal representatives of protected tenant with the third parties. If really the protected tenant is not interested in the tenancy land, the pattadar and his legal heirs will step into the shoes and they are at liberty to claim the land held by the protected tenant. The Tahsildar committed fundamental error in recording the compromise without finalizing the case under Section 40(1) of theof 1950 and without physical verification of the petition land and also by passing the mandatory provision of law.
9. Considering the above pleadings, the Joint Collector set aside the order dated 29.08.2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, and remanded the matter with certain directions.
10. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein, who are the appellants before the Joint Collector, filed this revision by contending that they are the proper and necessary parties, but the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, rejected their implead application.
11. Admittedly, Yerukali Sayanna was the protected tenant and his name was recorded in the final tenancy record of Farooqnagar Village for the year 1950 as a cultivator as per the entries recorded in the pahanies for the years 1952-1953 to 1981-1982. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 filed an application before the Tahsildar stating that their ancestor Manne Venkaiah was a protected tenant along with Yerukali Sayanna, but his name was not recorded in the final tenancy register by inadvertence. The said application was dismissed on 30.05.2009 by the Tahsildar with an observation that Manne Venkaiah was not a protected tenant over the petition schedule land and their ancestors failed to take any steps for correction of entries in the final tenancy register. The Tahsildar has also observed that Yerukali Sayanna never surrendered his tenancy rights under Section 19(1) of theof 1950. The petitioners-appellants who are the implead petitioners herein, claiming that they are the subsequent purchasers from Manne family and they are sailing with Manne family. When there was a compromise between Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 and Respondent Nos. 16 to 28, they filed an application for impleadment on the ground that they stepped into the shoes of Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 since they purchased the property from them and presently residing in the subject property. The petitioners-appellants would also state that Respondent Nos. 16 to 28 are not in possession of the suit schedule property and as such they cannot enter into compromise. The claim of the petitioners-appellants is that the original owner Smt. Mukthar Banu sold the land to Manne Ramulu and he in turn sold the land to an extent of 0.19 guntas in Sy. No. 146 (Old) and Ac.0.37½ guntas of land to the first appellant and thereafter the first appellant sold the same to the second appellant under registered sale deeds dated 29.09.2006 and 17.04.2006 and therefore, the second petitioner-appellant became absolute owner and he is in possession and they both developed the land and converted it into house sites and sold the plots to others and third parties are in possession of the plots purchased by them. The second appellant got mutation orders from the revenue officials and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to him.
12. Originally the dispute before the revenue authorities is out of an extent of Ac.5.23 guntas, Yerukali Ramulu purchased an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas and the dispute is only in respect of the balance area of Ac.3.05 guntas of land. The implead petitioners are the purchasers of Ac.0.19 guntas and Ac.0.37½ guntas of land in the entire extent of Ac.3.05 guntas and that their implead application was dismissed by the Tahsildar on the ground that purchase of the land by them is violative of Section 30(1) and 38(D) of the of 1950 and that no right flows under it. The rights of the third party cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners-appellants preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, but the Joint Collector set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, as it is not inconformity with Section 40(1) and (2) of theof 1950 and remanded the matter with certain directions.
13. The revision petitioners-appellants would contend that their argument was not considered by the Joint Collector and as such they are deprived of their rights. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, in an order dated 05.03.2004 observed that Yerukali Ramulu purchased Ac.2.20 guntas and Manne Ramulu son of Manne Venkaiah purchased the remaining land and he has been in possession of the balance area of the land. As per khasra pahani 1954-1955, the name of Yerukali Yelladu alias Yellaiah and Manne Venkaiah were shown as possessors of the said land, but the Tahsildar directed for eviction of the members of Manne family and upon which the Manne family preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector and the said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Manne family approached this Court by filing CRP No. 1910 of 2010 and it was allowed on 19.04.2011 by remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal.
14. As the share of the land of Manne family was sold out during the litigation to the petitioners-appellants herein, and the said land is converted into house sites and constructions came up on the ground and at present the land is no more agricultural land and sold to some third parties and as such the petition under Section 32(1) of theof 1950 is not maintainable.
15. The petitioners-appellants herein are well aware of the pendency of the cases before the revenue authorities under the of 1950, but taking advantage of the illiteracy of the poor persons, the petitioners-appellants purchased the lands and created documents and that the vendors of the petitioners-appellants themselves have no right and title over the subject land and as such any alienation made by them to the third parties is without title and it is a settled law that one who has no title cannot pass any title even if registered documents are executed in their favour and as such the transfer of property in favour of the petitioners-appellants is hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 38-D of theof 1950. Hence, the implead application filed by the petitioners-appellants was rightly not considered by the Joint Collector in his order dated 15.07.2017. Therefore, the revision filed by the petitioners-appellants is only to drag on the proceedings and it amounts to abuse of process of law and is devoid of merit.
16. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order under challenge with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority within one month from the date of this order.
17. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.
