Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1147 (AP)

Syed Khaja v. Kummari Balaiah

2001-10-01

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the records. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is filed under section 91 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred in short as act ) against an order made by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddi in Case No. FD/23/ten/97/ f3/4557/97 dated 12-3-2001. ( 3 ) THE Joint Collector, Medak at sangareddi had allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue officer, Wargal for fresh enquiry and disposal of the application under Section 32 of the Act keeping in view contain observations made therein. The contention of the respondents in the present revision, who are the appellants before the Joint collector, is that their father Durgaiah was the protected tenant of the subject land which was recorded both in provisional and final tenancy registers and after his demise they succeeded to his rights under Section 40 of the Act. It was also stated that the suit filed by the respondents in the appeal i. e. , the revision petitioners in O. S. No. 119 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, gajwal and also CMA No. 8 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet were dismissed and those judgments show their possession. It was also contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer had totally erred in granting relief on the ground that the respondents in the appeal who are the revision petitioners have been in possession of the disputed lands. The Joint collector at para 5 of the order has observed as follows:"as could be seen from the impugned order and also the available record, the fact that the father of the appellants, Durgaiah was a protected tenant does not appear to be in dispute. In the event the appellants would succeed to the tenancy rights. The main ground on which the MRO negatived the plea of the appellants for relief under section 32 of the Act is that the possession of the tenants was broken for a long time and hence the application under Section 32 is time barred. In the event the appellants would succeed to the tenancy rights. The main ground on which the MRO negatived the plea of the appellants for relief under section 32 of the Act is that the possession of the tenants was broken for a long time and hence the application under Section 32 is time barred. Considering the scheme of the Act and also the fact that protected tenancy of the father of the appellants is not in dispute, the crucial issue to be determined is whether the tenancy was terminated and if so, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, namely Section 19. In the absence of a finding on this issue, rejection of the appellants application in the circumstances of this case, is not sustainable. " ( 4 ) SRI S. Sriramulu, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had strenuously contended that the very approach of the learned Joint Collector in proceeding as though the protected tenancy is not disputed at all is totally erroneous. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to para 4 of the counter filed by the revision petitioners before the Mandal revenue Officer, Wargal which reads as follows:"it is false to allege in para 4 that on the long standing cultivation and also considering the possession of Durgaiah in the year 1950-51 the said Durgaiah was declared as protected tenant and P. T. Certificates was also granted. It is submitted that no enquiry was conducted at any time to give protected tenancy certificates by issue of notices to the pattadars. It is false to allege that after the death of Durgaiah the petitioners have succeeded tenancy rights under the provisions of the Tenancy Act since the alleged Durgaiah himself was not a tenant of the respondents or their ancestors. It is false to allege that the petitioners have been paying the rent in the shape of paddy one Khandi to Abdul Azeez and 64 pots to Mahboob Shareef and other share holders used to part the same as petitioner the ratio. Since the petitioners are not the tenants at all and as such their paying one Khandi to Abdul Azeez and 64 pots to mahboob Shareef and other share holders used to part the same as per the ratio is absolute falsehood to knock-away the ancestral property of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein. Since the petitioners are not the tenants at all and as such their paying one Khandi to Abdul Azeez and 64 pots to mahboob Shareef and other share holders used to part the same as per the ratio is absolute falsehood to knock-away the ancestral property of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein. "thus the approach of the Joint Collector in remanding the matter on the ground that the protected tenancy is not in dispute at all, appears to be unsustainable in the light of the material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. No doubt an attempt was made to show that it is only an order of remand and hence this objection also can be raised again before the authority of first instance. But it is pertinent to note that the very remand order is based on the ground that protected tenancy itself is not in dispute. On the strength of the pleadings it is clear that the protected tenancy is in dispute and in fact the revision petitioners had specifically denied the same even before the concerned mandal Revenue Officer. Hence the order on such non-existing ground is not sustainable in law. Hence the impugned order is set aside. But however, inasmuch as the matter was decided by the learned Joint collector on a wrong assumption of a fact as though protected tenancy was admitted by the revision petitioners, in fitness of things the matter is again remanded back to the joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddi with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties and also in the light of specific stand taken by the revision petitioners in para 4 of the counter before the Mandal Revenue Officer, wargal. ( 5 ) WITH the above directions the revision is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddi to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 6 ) THE civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.