Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 274 (AP)

Gopisetti Venkaiah v. Chavali Brahmabhotlu

2003-02-19

V.ESWARAIAH

body2003
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenants have filed this Civil Revision Petition against judgment passed by the Tenancy Appellate tribunal (Principal District Judge) Guntur, in ATA No. 38/91 dated 12-1-2000, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Special Officer under the tenancy Act-cum-Principal District munsif, Tenali passed in ATC No. 21/84 dated 26-4-1993 which was originally filed by four persons under Section 16 of the a. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act to declare them as cultivating tenants in respect of the petition schedule lands ad measuring ac. 21. 00. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant namely Bodaati Valaiah died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 5 to 8 therein. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in ATC No. 21/84. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the petition schedule lands belong to Valeswaraswamy Temple and they were allotted to its archaka. The 1st respondent gave petition schedule lands on lease to the petitioners eight years prior to the filing of the petition under an oral lease. The petitioners have been cultivating the same as lessees and the rent agreed to be paid by them to the 1st respondent is nine bags of paddy per acre totalling 189 bags for the entire extent of Ac. 21. 00. Respondents 2 to 10 informed the petitioner that they were 2003 (3) ALD June 15" having interest in the petition schedule property and they wanted the petitioner to pay the rents to them. It is the case of the petitioners that they have no concern with respondents 2 to 10 as the petition schedule land was leased out to them by the 1st respondent alone. Due to the claim and counter claim of the respondents, the petitioners apprehend that they might be dispossessed from the petition schedule land, they filed ATC to declare them as the cultivating tenants. ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent filed counter before the Special Officer stating that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the petition schedule land belongs to Valeswaraswamy Temple devasthanam. Respondents are the archakas of the said temple and the 1st respondent is the chief archaka. Some of the respondents entrusted the management of the schedule lands to the 1 st respondent. Out of Ac. 21. Respondents are the archakas of the said temple and the 1st respondent is the chief archaka. Some of the respondents entrusted the management of the schedule lands to the 1 st respondent. Out of Ac. 21. 00 of the total land Ac. 15. 00 were earmarked for archakatwam services and the income of the remaining Ac. 6. 00 was earmarked to meet Paditharam expenses. As per the understanding between the respondents, the 1st respondent has to get the land cultivated and pay the amounts to the respondents for services rendered by him also towards Paditharam expenses. The 1st respondent is in actual possession of the schedule lands and he never leased out the same to the petitioners at any time. The 1st respondent has got the schedule land cultivated personally all these years. The petitioners filed this petition at the instigation of respondents 2 to 10 who are enemically disposed against the 1st respondent. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE 9th respondent filed counter stating that there was compromise between the temple and the respondents according to the which the land was given to archakas for rendering services in the temple and for paditharam expenses in the temple and the respondents shall not lease out the schedule property to the third parties and there is specific stipulation in the agreement that the schedule property should be cultivated by the arachakas personally alone and the 1st respondent alone was cultivating the schedule lands personally and after deducting the agricultural expenses he was given the produce to the other respondents. But after some years the 1st respondent was showing less produce and enormous agricultural expenses and that he was secreting the income from the schedule property. The 1 st respondent did not divide the properties among the respondents 2 to 10, and therefore, they filed OS No. 101/83 on the file of the principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali for partition and for separate possession and for profits. During the pendnecy of the suit, a receiver was appointed in IA No. 1088/83 and the Receiver estimated the produce at the rate of 14 bags of paddy per acre and in all 294 bags for the total extent of Ac. 21. 00 cents. During the pendnecy of the suit, a receiver was appointed in IA No. 1088/83 and the Receiver estimated the produce at the rate of 14 bags of paddy per acre and in all 294 bags for the total extent of Ac. 21. 00 cents. After deducting the 1st respondent s share, the 1st respondent was directed to deposit the value of 245 bags on 31-1-1984 as he himself was in possession of the schedule land. The 1 st respondent deposited the value of 245 bags of paddy. Aggrieved by the said order respondents 2 to 10 filed ia No. 544/84 for the appointment of receiver to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule lands for the years 1984-85 and accordingly a Receiver was appointed and he has given notices to the parties concerned that he is going to take possession of the property and also announced that he is going to auction the schedule land and lease out the same in favour of the highest bidder on 6-5-1984. Therefore, the 1st respondent to circumvent the order of the Subordinate Judge, invented the story of the lease and set up the petitioners and got filed ATC on 30-4-1984 though there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the responders. The averments in the petition are incorrect and the petitioners are not entitled to be declared as cultivating tenants. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 8 adopted the counter filed by the 9th respondent. ( 8 ) DURING the pendency of ATC, the 1st respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 21 to 23. After considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Special Officer held that the petitioners herein are not the lessees of the 1st respondent in respect of the petition schedule land and the petitioners are not entitled to be declared as the cultivating tenants. The appellate Court also held that the petitioners are not the tenants of the petition schedule land and not entitled to be declared as tenants. ( 9 ) SRI Valeswaraswamy Temple represented by its Executive Officer got impleaded as respondent No. 42. The appellate Court also held that the petitioners are not the tenants of the petition schedule land and not entitled to be declared as tenants. ( 9 ) SRI Valeswaraswamy Temple represented by its Executive Officer got impleaded as respondent No. 42. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the appeal, compromise was recorded in ia No. 2496/96 in ATA No. 38/93 and some of the respondents admitted the tenancy of the petitioners herein but the said compromise was not accepted by the Appellate Court on the ground that some of the respondents have not agreed to the said compromise and opposed for such compromise. It is stated that the said action of the Appellate Authority in not accepting the compromise is illegal and arbitrary as the respondents divided their property and each of them have got certain shares and they agreed to lease out the lands to the petitioners on payment of separate rent. The learned Counsel further stated that the Appellate Court ought to have accepted the compromise entered into by the parties. Admittedly all the parties have not agreed for the compromise and some of the minor shareholders have opposed and disputed the said compromise and, therefore, the said compromise cannot be enforced on the said persons. ( 11 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the temple submits that there is denial of the so-called tenancy of the petitioners by all the respondents before the Special Officer and contrary to their pleadings some of the respondents cannot file compromise and therefore the said compromise was rightly rejected by the Appellate Court. The Supreme court upheld the abolition of hereditary rights of archakas etc. , and the Government of andhra Pradesh has issued orders in GO. Ms. No. 858, dated 8-10-1997 prescribing certain guidelines for rationalization of the scales of archakas and their cadre strength in various temples. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Endowments issued proceedings dated 23-6-2000 in fixing the cadre strength and also the pay scales in respect of the subject temple and as per the directions of the Commissioner the temple authorities took possession of the petition schedule land on 31-7-2000 and the said lands were put to public auction on 14-7-2000 by duly following the prescribed procedure. The highest bid was knocked out in favour of seven individuals for an amount of Rs. The highest bid was knocked out in favour of seven individuals for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 29-7-2000 and half of the said amount was deposited with the temple authorities and possession of the lands was also delivered to the highest bidders on 14-7-2000 and the lease was also approved by the Commissioner of endowments. But due to the pendency of this revision petition and in pursuance of the interim orders dated 2-8-2000 the highest bidders were not permitted to cultivate the lands. He further contends that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners without impleading the temple is illegal and the petitioners have obtained orders adversely affecting the interest of the temple without impleading it as party. It is further contended that the petitioners and other respondents have been acting adversely to affect the interests of the temple by raising all sorts disputes among the parties and the temple is suffering loss on account of this litigation and neither the petitioners nor the respondents are paying any rents to the temple. ( 12 ) THIS Court is not concerned with all the subsequent events but the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are the cultivating tenants and there is any illegality or irregularity committed by both the Courts below in holding that the petitioners are not the cultivating tenants. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the petitioners in ATC, three petitioners were examined as PWs. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 and A2 and on behalf of respondents three witnesses were examined as RWs 1 to 3 and Exs. B1 to B7 were marked on their behalf. ( 14 ) ON appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record both the Courts below held that the petitioners have miserably failed to establish that there was any oral lease that was granted in their favour and they have not filed a single scrap of paper in proof of their contention that they are the cultivating tenants of the said property belonging to the temple. The oral evidence of the petitioners did not prove the tenancy between them and the 1st respondent and there was no document whatsoever produced to prove their contention that they are the cultivating tenants at any time. It is the case of the petitioner that they were paying 114 bags of paddy for Ac. 21. The oral evidence of the petitioners did not prove the tenancy between them and the 1st respondent and there was no document whatsoever produced to prove their contention that they are the cultivating tenants at any time. It is the case of the petitioner that they were paying 114 bags of paddy for Ac. 21. 00 cents but as per the proceeding in the suit between the respondents, the 1st respondent deposited 245 bags of paddy after deducting his share. That was also one of the circumstances to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner that they are the cultivating tenants. ( 15 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that they are the cultivating tenants for about eight years prior to the filing of the ATC, but there is no single scrap of paper filed by them in proof of their contention. The names have not been recorded in any of the revenue records to show that they are the cultivating tenants. Both the Courts below concurrently held that they are not the cultivating tenants. I see no illegality or irregularity in the orders under revision. ( 16 ) IT is to be stated that the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 37 of 1987) which came into fore with effect from 28-5-1987 has been upheld by the Hon ble supreme Court. By virtue of Section 82 of the said Act and particularly by insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 82, all the provisions of A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy act shall not apply to any leases of the lands belonging or given or endowed for purpose of charitable or religious institutions or endowments as defined under the Act. ( 17 ) IT is also further submitted that by virtue of A. P. Ordinance 7 and 8 of 2002 amending the Endowments Act as well as a. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, the tenancy Act has no application to decide any dispute by the authorities under the act and, therefore, the proceedings initiated before the Tenancy Act are not maintainable and non est in law and it is for the respective parties to take recourse under the Endowments Act alone. ( 18 ) RIGHTLY both the Courts below concurrently held that the petitioners are not the cultivating tenants, and I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding under Article 227 of the Constitution of india and the CRP is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the 42nd respondent to take appropriate action under the endowments Act in view of the changed law. No costs.