Full Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed, against the order dated 3.7.2000, passed by the Joint Collector, R.15. The genesis of the proceedings, in brief, is as under. One Thakur Devi Singh was the pattadar of an extent of Acs.82-13 gts., in Survey Nos. 1443, etc. of Arjalabavi, hamlet of Panagal Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. Koppula Narsaiah, Veeraiah, Ramaiah, Verikataiah and Lingaiah, the ancestors of respondents 1 to 12, were declared as protected tenants, in respect of Acs.3-34 gts. in Sy. No. 1445, under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Tenancy Act'). They were also issued certificates, under Section 38-E of that Act on 30.10.1975.
2. One Smt. Bharathi Bai challenged the certificates issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title, by filing an appeal before the Joint Collector. The appeal was rejected, and thereupon, she filed CRP No. 2636 of 1985, before this Court. The revision was also dismissed on 8.4.1993. Despite the same, she claimed ownership rights over an extent of Acs.3-34 gts. in Sy. No. 1445. She has also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners herein, on 16.8.1996. On the basis of the claim made by Bharathi Bai and the sale deed executed by her, the Mandal Revenue Officer, R.13, had affected mutation in the revenue records, and issued pattadar pass books. On coming to know the same, the petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer. He, in turn, replied through Memo dated 25.11.1997, stating that the dispute is civil in nature, and they have to seek redressal from appropriate Court.
3. Respondents 1 to 12 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, R.14, against the memo dated 25.11.1997, issued by R.13. The appeal was dismissed on 5.3.1999. Thereupon, respondents 1 to 12 filed a revision before the Joint Collector. The revision was allowed through the impugned order.
4. Sri K. Venu Madhav, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the entries in the revenue records were made after due verification, and in case, respondents 1 to 12 have any claim, they have to establish it before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, as provided for under Section 8 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act'). He submits that R.15 has reversed the concurrent findings recorded by R.13 and R.14, without any basis. It is also stated that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers from the pattadar of the land.
5. Sri Abhishek Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 12, on the other hand, submits that the ancestors of his clients were not only declared as protected tenants, but were also issued certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, and in utter disregard to the statutory provisions, R.13 had issued title deeds in favour of the petitioners and Bharathi Bai. He contends that R.15 has undertaken extensive discussion, and has ultimately set at naught, the injustice done to respondents 1 to 12.
6. The 1971 Act prescribes the procedure for maintenance of revenue records and for modification of entries therein. One important aspect that needs to be taken into account, is that Section 3-A of that Act confers precedence on the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and directs that no steps under the 1971 Act, shall be inconsistent with the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It is a matter of record that the ancestors of respondents 1 to 12 were declared as protected tenants, in respect of Acs.3-34 gts. of land, in Sy. No. 1445, and that the certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act was also issued in their favour. The rights that have accrued under the protected tenancy certificate, or the consequential certificates issued under Section 38-E, cannot be defeated, except by having recourse to the steps under the Tenancy Act. In fact, the transferor of the writ petitioners has initiated such steps, viz; by filing appeal before the Joint Collector, and thereafter a revision before this Court; but was not successful. Thereby, the certificate under Section 38-E, issued in favour of the ancestors of respondents 1 to 12, became final.
7. Any entry in the revenue records, that is made contrary to the certificate issued under Section 38-E, per se, is illegal and untenable, even if one goes by Section 3-A of 1971 Act. The then Mandal Revenue Officer had committed a blatant illegality in making entries contrary to the 38-E certificate issued in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners. Further, when an objection was raised to it, he required respondents 1 to 12 to approach the Civil Court. There cannot be any greater instance of misuse of power, than this. The appellate authority also chose to put a premium on such blatant illegality. The Joint Collector has undertaken extensive discussion, went to the genesis of the dispute, and had rendered justice to respondents 1 to 12. The petitioners are only the purchasers from Smt. Bharathi Bai. They have to stand or fall on the strength of the rights possessed by their transferor. It has already been pointed out that Bharathi Bai failed in her effort to cancel the 38-E certificate, issued in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners. Therefore, the transfer made in favour of the petitioners, does not confer any right upon them.
8. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.