Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1123 (AP)

Imandi Anasuya v. Bandaru Satyanarayana

2007-11-15

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2007
ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner in A.T.C. No.38 of 1993 on the file of the Special Officer under Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. The tenant filed A.T.C. under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for a declaration that the petitioner is a statutory tenant in the schedule land and for consequential injunction restraining the respondents and their men from over interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the schedule land till he is duly evicted under the process of law. 3. The Special Officer, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred A.T.A.No.7 of 2004 before the appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Special Officer. The second respondent, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate Tribunal, preferred the present Civil Revision Petition challenging its validity and legality. 4. The petition under the Tenancy Act was filed for declaration that the petitioner is the statutory tenancy of the schedule land. In the petition, the tenant averred as follows: The petitioner was inducted into schedule land in the last week of August, 1985 as a tenant by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly, who got joint right in the said land. It was agreed that the tenant has to pay 22 bags of paddy towards maktha for the first crop and 13 bags of paddy for the second crop, both weighing 75 kgs per bag for the entire schedule land. Accordingly, the petitioner cultivated the schedule land and was paying maktha to the respondents 1 and 2 equally without committing any default. Later, disputes arose when the first respondent proposed to sell her share of the property, which is Ac.1.86 cents of land to third parties to discharge her bank debt by refusing to sell the same to the petitioner by giving option as per the provisions of Tenancy Act. The first respondent sold her share of Ac.1.86 cents of land to third respondent under agreement of sale. The first respondent sold her share of Ac.1.86 cents of land to third respondent under agreement of sale. Later, she executed a registered sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent on 21.08.1993 at the instigation of the elder brother of respondents 1 and 2 to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule land. Hence, the petition to protect his tenancy rights. 5 The first respondent opposed the application and filed counter affidavit with the following allegations: The petitioner did not cultivate the lands of her father Bandaru Perumallu that he was never be a cultivating tenant to the schedule land at any time and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was never in possession of the land. The petitioner has acted as a volunteer at the time when the standing crop in the schedule land was attached and land revenue was paid. The first respondent sold the land to the wife of the third respondent in April, 1992 and received the sale consideration for discharging her bank debt and the vendee raised the dalva crop in 1992 and subsequent crops and the petitioner to have wrongful gain filed the present petition with false allegations. 6. The second respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is no other than the cousin brother of the respondents 1 and 2; that the present petition was filed as the petitioner was having some family disputes with respondents 1 and 2; that the petitioner paid some land revenue for some years at request of the second respondent when the revenue people attached the standing crop and the petitioner taking advantage of the possession of the cist receipts filed this false case. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The respondents 3 and 4 filed independent counters contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was not in possession of the schedule land at any time. The respondents 3 and 4 purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 21.08.1993 and they are continuing in possession of Ac.1.86 cents of land since the date of purchase and they raised dalva crop for the year 1992 in their land. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The respondents 3 and 4 purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 21.08.1993 and they are continuing in possession of Ac.1.86 cents of land since the date of purchase and they raised dalva crop for the year 1992 in their land. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The petitioner, in order to prove his claim, examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.36. The respondents examined RWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.8. The Special Officer observed that the burden is on the petitioner to establish that he is the statutory tenant for the schedule land from the year 1985 as pleaded by him. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as he happened to be the tenant, he paid the arrears of land revenue to the concerned authorities to protect the crop raised by him in the schedule land, which became ready for harvest. The respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner is no other than their cousin. He paid the chist at the request of second respondent; that mere payment of cist does not create any interest and right over the schedule property; and that there is no document to establish that the petitioner is a statutory tenant. 9. The petitioner relied on Exs.A.9 and A.10 undertaking letters said to be given to the revenue people to pay the arrears of cist. The Special Officer observed that if there are any such undertaking letters, they should have been produced by the revenue authorities, but not the petitioner and as Exs.P.9 and 10 are the copies of the undertaking letters, there is any amount of doubt about undertakings said to be given by the petitioner. Moreover, the undertaking letters do not contain any endorsements or signatures of revenue authorities. The Special Officer further observed that the steps to examine any of the revenue authorities were not taken to establish that they were the undertaking letters given to them by the petitioner. In the absence of same, it is difficult to believe the documents covered by Exs.A.9 and Ex.A.10. 10. The Special Officer further observed that the steps to examine any of the revenue authorities were not taken to establish that they were the undertaking letters given to them by the petitioner. In the absence of same, it is difficult to believe the documents covered by Exs.A.9 and Ex.A.10. 10. So far as Exs.A.1 and A.2 revenue receipts are concerned, the Special Officer observed that they do not create any interest or right over the schedule property and the documents do not contain the word 'tenant' and in view of the said reason, he is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that he paid the land revenue in the capacity of a tenant. 11. Regarding Exs.A.3 to A.8 adangal copies, the Special Officer observed that on perusal of those documents, it is noticed that the petitioner's name was mentioned as encroacher. But there are separate columns in the said documents. In Column 16, the name of tenant was mentioned as 'possessary mortgagee'. The Special Officer further observed that the name of the petitioner might have been inserted at a subsequent stage in the adangals, therefore, he is unable to accept the genuineness of the entries in the adngals. No revenue personnel were examined to prove the genuineness of the entries in the said adangals. The Special Officer further observed that the entries in the revenue records have to be accepted at their face value and the Court should not embark upon making enquiry into their correctness. The Special Officer further observed that on careful examination of the entries, he found that the entries are fraudulently made and as the petitioner did not examine any revenue authorities to establish the genuineness of the entries, he has no hesitation to hold that Exs.A.3 to A.8 are not helpful to the petitioner. 12. Regarding the documents covered by Exs.A.13 to 16 the Maktha receipts, which are said to be issued by the husband of the second respondent, he was examined as R.W.4 and denied the said documents. The said documents were not referred in the petition and there is no mention that the amount payable under those receipts. The petitioner did not mention that the payment was made towards makhta and he also did not examine anybody to prove the said documents except the self-serving testimony of PW.1. The said documents were not referred in the petition and there is no mention that the amount payable under those receipts. The petitioner did not mention that the payment was made towards makhta and he also did not examine anybody to prove the said documents except the self-serving testimony of PW.1. Therefore, the Special Officer observed that the above circumstances are creating suspicion about the genuineness of those documents. 13. So far as Exs.P.17 to 19 are concerned, they are the post cards said to be written by RW.4. They were also not accepted by the Special Officer by observing that there is no mention about the landlord and tenant relationship in those letters, therefore, they are not helpful to the petitioner. 14. The Special Officer, after making the above observations, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he is the cultivating tenant of the land. 15. The appellate Court regarding Exs.A.1 and A.2 observed that the respondents did not deny the payment of land revenue by the petitioner and they simply stated that he paid the same as cousin brother of the first respondent on their behalf. The Special Officer simply disbelieved Exs.A.9 and 10 undertaking letters on the ground that they are not the originals. As the respondents admitted that the petitioner paid the land revenue, the documents covered by Exs.A.9 and 10 undertaking letters cannot be disbelieved. 16. The above observation of the appellate Court is erroneous because the undertaking letters will be taken by the revenue authorities and they will be kept with them to make further demand of the land revenue on future date. It is not the case of the petitioner that he kept the copies of those letters. On perusal of those documents, it is noticed that they do not contain any endorsement or initials of the officers and they were not produced by the revenue authorities from their custody. Therefore, the finding of the Special Officer that they are not genuine documents is correct than the observation of the appellate Court. The appellate Court observed that Exs.A.3 to A.8 clearly establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, therefore, they cannot be disbelieved. Even if it is observed for a moment that there is no interpolation in the entries, the petitioner was described as an encroacher, but not as a tenant. The appellate Court observed that Exs.A.3 to A.8 clearly establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, therefore, they cannot be disbelieved. Even if it is observed for a moment that there is no interpolation in the entries, the petitioner was described as an encroacher, but not as a tenant. Therefore, the petitioner got the status of tenant simply because his name was mentioned as an encroacher. If really he was the tenant of the land, the Village Administrative Officer would be definitely mentioned the status of the petitioner as tenant. Therefore, I concur with the view expressed by the Special Officer by setting aside the view of the appellate Court. 17. Regarding the payment of some paddy to the respondents 1 and 2, the appellate Court observed that when the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the property, there is no need for him to pay the paddy or its value thereon and if he is no way connected with the land, there is no need for him to pay the paddy. When it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is looking after the properties on behalf of them on account of relationship, he has to be recognized as a tenant. But, nowhere the petitioner was described as a cultivating tenant and the payment of paddy was not mentioned as the rent. Therefore, the Special Officer was right in accepting the plea of the respondents that the petitioner is not the cultivating the tenant. 18. The appellate Court further observed that when the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and when it is approved by the Civil Court in O.S.No.461 of 1994, it cannot be said that the rights of the tenant obliterated merely because the ownership is transferred from one person to another person. The appellate Court further observed that even if the petitioner is not a tenant, the remedy is left over to the respondents to file a suit for eviction of recovery of possession. Exs.A.17 to 19 have clearly established that the petitioner is not an encroacher, but he is the tenant on the schedule land, therefore, the Special Officer failed to appreciate those aspects and erroneously dismissed the petition. 19. I perused Exs.A.17 to 19 post cards. Exs.A.17 to 19 have clearly established that the petitioner is not an encroacher, but he is the tenant on the schedule land, therefore, the Special Officer failed to appreciate those aspects and erroneously dismissed the petition. 19. I perused Exs.A.17 to 19 post cards. There was no mention in those post cards that the petitioner is the tenant or the amount referred in the said letters was towards rent. In the absence of any positive material that he is the cultivating tenant and simply because he is in possession of the property, his prayer for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant cannot be accepted. 20 In NAMBURI v. INDUKURI SATYANARAYANARAJU, a learned single Judge of this Court held that in order to receive protection under Tenancy Act exposing landowners to severe disadvantage, tenant is required to produce some written documents between him and landowner or entries in revenue records in support of his case. Mere oral assertion does not serve the purpose. Therefore, I am also of the same opinion in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. After going through the entire material, I am of the view that the appellate Court came to an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant. However, on perusal of the entire record, I am convinced that the Special Officer came to the right conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is the cultivating tenant under respondents 1 and 2 for the petition schedule land. Therefore, I am inclined to uphold the order of the Special Officer by setting aside the order of the appellate Tribunal. 22. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the appellate Court dated 25.10.2004 is set aside by confirming the order of the Special Officer dated 27.01.2004 in A.T.C.No.38 of 1993. No order as to costs.