Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.      7909-7911            OF 2013   (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 33704-33706 of 2011)

Satish Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.      ... Appellant

Versus

Yamjala Malla Reddy and others      ...Respondents  

O R D E R

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  common  

judgment and order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the  

High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad  in  Writ  Appeal  Nos.  2219  and  2304  of  

2005 and C.R.P. No. 1368 of 2010.

3. The disputes in these appeals relate to lands bearing  

Sy. Nos. 246 to 262, 265 to 269, 430 to 448, 454,

Page 2

2

460 to 464, 517, 538 to 540 situated at Bowrampet  

Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.  

As  the  facts  would  unfurl,  Government  of  Andhra  

Pradesh  issued  a  notification  under  the  Andhra  

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural  

Lands  Act,  1950  (for  short  “the  1950  Act”),  and  

thereafter,  the  revenue  authority  conducted  an  

inquiry  as  per  the  notification  of  1973  and  

determined that the ownership stood transferred to  

the protected tenants with effect from 1.1.1973.  The  

respondents herein, as protected tenants of the said  

lands,  were  granted  requisite  certificate  under  

Section 38E of the 1950 Act.  As pleaded, the Mandal  

Revenue Officer (MRO) in exercise of powers under  

the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act,  

1971  (for  short  “the  1971  Act”)  issued  pattadar  

passbooks in respect of the land in their favour.   

4. The respondents and some of the legal heirs of the  

protected  tenants  alleged  to  have  executed  a  

General  Power  of  Attorney  (GPA)  in  favour  of  one  

Laxma Reddy and one S. Venkata Reddy, who taking

Page 3

3

advantage  of  the  alleged  GPA,  made  certain  

alienations  between the years  1982 to  1985.   The  

appellant-society,  on  the  basis  of  the  alleged  sale  

deeds,  made  an  application  before  the  MRO  and  

obtained order dated 13.3.1997 behind the back of  

the respondents deleting their names from records of  

rights in land revenue and inserted the names of the  

members  of  the appellant-society in  the column of  

possession.  That apart, there was cancellation of the  

pattedar passbooks earlier granted in favour of the  

answering respondents.   

5. Being  aggrieved,  the  respondents  preferred  an  

appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)  

who set aside the order dated 13.3.1997 passed by  

the  MRO.   Being  dissatisfied,  the  appellant  

challenged the said order before the Joint Collector  

by  filing  revision  petitions  D5/5191,  D5/5192  and  

D5/5193 of 1999.  During the pendency of the said  

revision petitions, the RDO conferred final certificate  

of  ownership  on  26.4.2000  in  favour  of  the  

respondents  under  Section  38E  of  the  1950  Act

Page 4

4

declaring  them  to  be  owners  in  respect  of  the  

scheduled land with effect from 1.1.1973.  The grant  

of final certificate by the RDO, referred to as above,  

was also challenged by the appellant before the Joint  

Collector by way of an appeal in F2/3809/2000.  The  

Joint Collector by a common order dated 30.7.2001  

dismissed the revisions filed by the appellant holding  

that  neither  the  appellant-society  nor  its  members  

have  the  locus  standi  to  agitate  the  matter  and,  

therefore,  are not entitled to seek any relief  under  

the Record of Rights Act.  Vide another order dated  

2.3.2002, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal of  

the appellant in F2/3809/2000 holding that there was  

no infirmity in the order of the RDO in granting final  

certificates to the respondents.   

6. The order of the Joint Collected dated 30.7.2001 was  

challenged by the appellant before the High Court in  

W.P. No. 7893 of 2002.  The learned single Judge, by  

order dated 11.4.2005, allowed the writ petition.  The  

said order came to be assailed in Writ Appeal Nos.  

2219 and 2304 of 2005.  While the writ appeals were

Page 5

5

pending,  the appellant  challenged the order  of  the  

Joint  Collector  dated  2.3.2002  confirming  grant  of  

final certificate to the respondent in C.R.P. No. 1368  

of 2010.

7. It is apt to note here that while the proceeding for the  

justifiability  of  the  grant  of  certificate  before  the  

revenue  authority  was  continuing,  a  civil  suit  was  

filed  for  permanent  injunction.   The  learned  trial  

Judge declined to grant any injunction.  The factum of  

issuance of GPA and consequence alienation is  the  

core issue which was pending in the civil suit.  It is  

requisite to mention here that another suit  OS No.  

201 of 1999 has also been filed and both the suits  

are  pending  in  the  Court  of  Principal  Senior  Civil  

Judge, Ranga Reddy.

8. At  this  juncture,  we may  note  with  profit  that  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  heard  the  writ  

appeals  and  the  revision  petition  together  and  

disposed  of  the  same  by  the  common  impugned  

order.   While  dealing with  three matters,  the High  

Court referred to various provisions of the 1971 Act

Page 6

6

and various aspects of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land  

and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short “the  

Rules”) and came to hold as follows: -

“Thus,  on  a  reading  of  the  Rules  referred  to  above,  it  is  clear  that  there  should  be  an  enquiry before passing a final order and when  the  members  of  the  Societies,  i.e.,  the  writ  petitioners  have  not  purchased  agricultural  lands, the Act itself becomes inapplicable and,  therefore, the Societies at the first instance had  no  right  to  approach  the  Tahsildar/Mandal  Revenue Officer for mutation.  Having regard to  the  statutory  provisions,  the  Mandal  Revenue  Officer  ought  to  have  conducted  an  enquiry  and, therefore, the order of the Mandal Revenue  Officer  is  bad  and  contrary  to  the  aforementioned  statutory  provisions.   The  learned  single  Judge  did  not  took  into  the  matter from this perspective and, therefore, we  are  of  the  firm  view  that  the  order  of  the  learned single Judge is erroneous being contrary  to law and the same is accordingly set aside.”  

9. After  so  stating the Division Bench referred to  the  

1950  Act,  the  order  passed  by  the  Joint  Collector,  

Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land  

Revenue Rules,  1951 and Section 48A of the 1950  

Act and recorded thus: -

“We  have  given  our  anxious  thought  to  the  contentions  raised  by  either  side.   We  agree  with the submissions of the learned counsel for

Page 7

7

the respondents in C.R.P. No. 1368 of 2010 to  hold  that  the  protected  tenants  have  got  the  certificate  of  protected  tenancy  only  post  the  compromise between them and the pattadars.  We  also  agree  with  the  contentions  of  the  respondents that the G.P.A. holders have mis- utilised the power given to them.  In fact, the  G.P.As were taken for the purpose of obtaining  loans on the agriculture lands.  We have also  noticed that the Civil  Suits vide O.S. Nos. 584  and 201 of  1999 are pending in  the Court  of  Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy.  We  have  also  noticed  that  the  interlocutory  applications in the said suit for injunction were  also dismissed by the trial court and this Court  confirmed the said order in a Civil Miscellaneous  Appeal  against  the  interlocutory  applications  and  the  learned  single  Judge’s  order  in  the  C.M.A.  was also confirmed in a Letters  Patent  Appeal by a Division Bench of this Court.  It was  further  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondents in C.R.P. No. 1368 of 2010 that  the  G.P.A.  was  given  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  agricultural  loans  and  not  for  the  purpose of  alienation and since there  was no  consensus for the said action, the sale is also  bad on the ground apart from being hit by the  provisions of the Tenancy Act.

Without going into the merits in respect of  the Civil Suit, we are of the firm view that the  order  of  the  learned single  Judge in  W.P.  No.  7893/2003, dated 11.4.2005 is liable to be set  aside and C.R.P. No. 1368 of 2010 questioning  the  grant  of  38-E  Certificate  is  liable  to  be  dismissed.”

10. After hearing the matter for some time the learned  

counsel for both the sides fairly submitted that order

Page 8

8

dated  13.3.1997  passed  by  the  Mandal  Revenue  

Officer,  Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,  

should be set aside and a direction should be issued  

for disposal of the civil suits, namely, O.S. No. 201 of  

1999 and O.S. No. 584 of 1999 pending before the 1st  

Additional  Senior Civil  Judge,  Ranga Reddy District,  

on  their  own  merits  uninfluenced  by  any  of  the  

observations  made by the High Court.   It  has also  

been agreed at the Bar that the order passed by the  

High  Court  in  CRP  filed  against  the  order  dated  

2.3.2002 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy  

District  confirming  the  grant  of  final  certificate  of  

ownership by the Revenue Divisional officer, Ranga  

Reddy District, East Division, dated 26.4.2000 under  

Section 38-E of the 1950 Act should be set aside and  

the  CRP  should  be  directed  to  be  heard  by  the  

learned single Judge of the High Court afresh within a  

specified period.   

11. Regard being had to  the consensus arrived at,  we  

modify  the  order  passed  in  the  writ  appeals,  as  

agreed to at the Bar, and set aside the order dated

Page 9

9

13.3.1997 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and  

further direct that the suits, namely, O.S. No. 201 of  

1999 and O.S. No. 584 of 1999 pending before the  

learned trial Judge shall be disposed within a period  

of one year without being influenced by any of the  

observations made by the High Court.  As far as CRP  

is concerned, the same shall be disposed of by the  

learned single Judge on its own merits.  We request  

the High Court to dispose of the CRP as expeditiously  

as possible, preferably, within a period of six months.

12. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.   There  

shall be no order as to costs.

………….…………….J. [Anil R. Dave]

………….…………….J. [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; September 5, 2013.