Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 335 (AP)

Vangala Ramulu v. Pedala Seetharam Naidu

2003-03-03

V.ESWARAIAH

body2003
( 1 ) THE petitioners herein filed A. T. C. No. 2/1993 on the file of the Principal district Munsif:cum:special Officer for tenancy Cases, Parvathipuram, under section 10 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) tenancy Act, 1956 (for short the Act ) to declare them as the cultivating tenants in respect of the petition schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that since time immemorial of their father, they have been cultivating the land in question of the 1st respondent - landlord and the land was given in tenancy to the father of the petitioners by the forefathers of the 1st respondent. During the lifetime of the petitioners father, he continued to cultivate the land and after his death the petitioners are cultivating the same. They have evidence to show that they are the cultivating tenants. But recently with an ill - motive to get the petitioners evicted from the petition schedule property, the 1st respondent colluded with the other respondents and without issuing any notice to exercise the option for purchase of the said land under the Tenancy Act, the 1st respondent executed a collusive Sale Deed dated 27-02-1993 and under the guise of the same, they are making every effort to evict the petitioners forcibly. ( 3 ) A counter has been filed stating that the petition is not maintainable and all the parties belonging to the same village and the petitioners are not at all the tenants of the 1st respondent and they never cultivated the petition schedule property. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners are the cultivating tenants. The 1st respondent and his sons executed a registered Sale Deed dated 27-02-1993 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 for a valid consideration of Rs. 72,100/- and the petitioners very well know about the said sale of the land and there was no truth in any of the contentions that the petitioners were dispossessed after the execution of the sale deed. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, P. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-8 were marked and on behalf of respondents r. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex. B-1 to b-5 were marked. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, P. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-8 were marked and on behalf of respondents r. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex. B-1 to b-5 were marked. The Special Officer held that the sale deed executed only for one year, the revenue receipt was filed by the petitioners to show that they have paid the land revenue on behalf of the owner of the land - Sundaramma (mother of the 1st respondent) and the land revenue also paid on behalf of the landlord/landlady and it is not known whether the landlords themselves paid the land revenue or the petitioners. The Court below believed that there was tenancy between the petitioners family and the 1st respondent s family. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that P. W. 1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that they are not in possession of the petition schedule property and they did not pay the paddy to any of the respondents to show that they were the cultivating tenants and that there was no default in payment of rent. P. W. 2 in his cross-examination admitted that the 2nd respondent herein seetarama Naidu is cultivating the lands in question for the last four years. P. W. 4 stated that the 2nd respondent is cultivating the land in question. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were the cultivating tenants as on the date of the filing of the ATC. The Special Officer himself stated that the prayer of the petitioners to issue permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property as the cultivating tenant, but they are not in possession of the land. A presumption has been drawn that they might have ousted either by force or by some other means. Therefore, the prayer accordingly moulded directing to put the petitioners in possession, as they are the tenants in respect of the petition schedule property. When the petitioners failed to prove by cogent reasons their possession and the cultivation of the land and they were not factually found in possession, the Special Officer ought not to have granted the relief of putting the petitioners in petition schedule property when there was no such prayer. When the petitioners failed to prove by cogent reasons their possession and the cultivation of the land and they were not factually found in possession, the Special Officer ought not to have granted the relief of putting the petitioners in petition schedule property when there was no such prayer. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Officer, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed A. T. A. No. 1/1997 on the file of the District Judge, vizianagaram. The learned District Judge, vizianagaram held that since the petitioners were ousted from the possession even as per the observation of the Special Officer and respondents 1 and 2 herein are in possession and cultivating the land and the petitioners are outside from the cultivation, the possession ought not to have delivered to them. ( 6 ) NO doubt, the reasoning of the lower appellate Court that the interpretation of section 12 of the Act, is incorrect and there was no question of application of Section 12 of the Act to the instant case as it applies to the landlord for resumption of possession for personal cultivation and the question of issuing a notice to the legal heirs of the original tenant does not arise and the tenant is perpetuity in respect of the agricultural land. ( 7 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether the petitioner were cultivating the land as on the date of the filing of the petition? ( 8 ) THE evidence on record di loses that the petitioners were not the cultivating tenants and, therefore, the A. T. C. filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as the petitioners failed to prove that they are the cultivating tenants. As there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are the cultivating tenants the Special Officer himself gave a finding that as per the petitioners they were not cultivating the land but respondents 1 and 2 were cultivating the land and, therefore, the question of landlord and tenant relationship does not arise and as there is no landlord and tenant relationship, the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the A. T. C. Therefore, the ultimate result arrived at by the lower appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the landlord cannot be interfered with. ( 9 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.