Telangana High Court upholds protected tenants’ rights over 200 acres of Gachibowli land

In a 156-page judgment, Justice C V Bhaskar Reddy set aside a controversial 2016 order issued by the sub-collector that had attempted to overturn the 2013 findings of the revenue divisional officer (RDO) recognising the tenants’ ownership.

“The very fact that the said Officer issued a very detailed order on 02.09.2016 while he was admittedly on sanctioned leave on 01.09.2016, raises a serious doubt on the genuineness and bona fides of the entire exercise undertaken by the said Sub-Collector,” the judge said.

RDO’s findings

The controversy revolved around the application of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. The matter dates back to March 1975, when several people claiming to be protected tenants filed an objection petition seeking ownership rights under section 38-E of the Act. The petitioners’ predecessors were declared protected tenants and entitled to ownership certificates under this Act. Crucially, the RDO in 2013 found no lawful evidence that these tenancy rights had ever been surrendered.

The sub-collector in his 2016 report claimed the lands had been converted for residential use and hence the tenancy law was not applicable anymore. The descendants of protected tenants challenged this report, and the high court upheld the RDO’s original jurisdiction and findings.

In a powerful critique of the administrative overreach, Justice Reddy delivered scorching remarks regarding the sub-collector’s actions. The judge pointed out a severe procedural irregularity, noting that the sub-collector had issued a detailed order on the complex matter within a day, while on sanctioned leave.

“The manner in which the Sub-Collector has passed the impugned order, without properly appreciating the scope of the powers vested in him… casts serious doubt on the fairness and legality of the process,” Justice Reddy stated, emphasising the suspicious nature of the rushed decision-making. He further clarified the limits of administrative power, ruling that the sub-collector had “exceeded his jurisdiction in attempting to interfere with the findings already settled by the competent RDO and judicial directions of this Court”.

The court set aside and quashed the detailed order passed by the sub-collector (joint collector) in 2016, which had earlier overturned the findings regarding protected tenancy rights. The court restored the RDO’s original order that had recognised the petitioners’ status as legal heirs of protected tenants and validated their ownership claims under the 1950 Act.

From the homepage

US–China trade tensions flare again – why it matters to India & the world

‘Don’t fear US tariffs… we’ll open trade with 10 new countries’: CM Yogi Adityanath at Bhadohi Carpet Expo

IND vs WI: Shubman Gill proves why captaincy hasn’t affected his batting