Judgment :- The first respondent filed A.T.C.No.24 of 1996 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the second respondent, for eviction from the agricultural land of Ac.3.24 cents in D.No.239/2B of Vatticherukuru Village under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. It is alleged that the petition schedule land was leased in the year 1992 on a maktha of 17 bags payable by January of every year and that the second respondent committed default in payment of maktha for the years 1994- 95 and 1995-96. The A.T.C. was preceded by a legal notice, dated 13-03-1996, got issued by the first respondent demanding the second respondent, to pay maktha. The latter issued a reply admitting the allegation as to non-delivery of maktha to the former, but pleaded that it was paid for the year 1995-96 to Gram Panchayat, the petitioner herein, under receipt. The second respondent opposed the application mostly on the grounds mentioned by him in the reply notice. The petitioner herein got itself impleaded as respondent in A.T.C. It was pleaded that there is a big tank in the village, spread over in an area of Ac.100.00 in the Vatticherukuru Village and that the then Jaminder granted about Acs.29.00 of land in Sy.Nos.239 and 240 of the village for its maintenance and upkeep. The land is said to have vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and thereafter A.P. Pandhayat Raj Act. The petition schedule property is said to be part of that land. It is also mentioned that the Gram Panchayat filed O.S.No.57 of 1966 for recovery of possession of that land and all the proceedings in relation to that land have culminated with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.931 of 1977 and 200 of 1978. Through its order, dated 25-09-2000, the trial Court allowed the A.T.C. and directed that the second respondent shall deliver vacant possession of the land to the first respondent. The petitioner filed A.T.A. No.96 of 2000 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed through the order, dated 04-11-2008. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed A.T.A. No.96 of 2000 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed through the order, dated 04-11-2008. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri N.Sreerama Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that right and the title over the property vests in the petitioner and that the same was reiterated by the Supreme Court in VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. NORI V. DEEKSHITHULU (1991 Supp.(2) SCC 228) and that there was absolutely no basis for the first respondent to claim the petition schedule land. It is contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the tenancy of the second respondent stood attorned in favour of the petitioner and in fact maktha was also being paid to it. The learned counsel submits that the Courts below failed to take the legal implications of the adjudication in the earlier proceedings into account. Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner filed O.S.No.57 of 1966 for the relief of recovery of possession of this very land and that the suit was dismissed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the suit also. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, which is a creature under statute, cannot resort to other methods after filing a suit for recovery of possession. He further submits that the petitioner is not at all a proper or necessary party in the proceedings under the Act when its claim could not have been decided in such proceedings. There is a long-standing dispute as to the ownership and enjoyment of the land in Sy.Nos.239 and 240 of the Vatticherukuru Village between the Gram Panchayat on one hand and the private parties on the other hand. It is a matter of record that the Gram Panchayat itself filed O.S. No.57 of 1966 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Guntur, for recovery of possession of the land. Similarly, O.S.No.118 of 1968 was filed by some of the private parties against the Gram Panchayat. Both suits were dismissed by the trial Court. The appeals preferred against them were also dismissed. Same result followed in the Supreme Court. Similarly, O.S.No.118 of 1968 was filed by some of the private parties against the Gram Panchayat. Both suits were dismissed by the trial Court. The appeals preferred against them were also dismissed. Same result followed in the Supreme Court. While upholding the dismissal of the suits, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the relevant enactments and held that the land vested with the Gram Panchayat. The denial of relief of recovery of possession claimed by the Gram Panchayat by the trial Court and lower appellate Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. There is nothing on record to disclose that the petitioner recovered possession of the schedule property by instituting any proceedings, either before the Courts or any other authorities. The first respondent gave the petition schedule land on lease, to the second respondent in the year 1992. This fact was not denied by the second respondent. Alleging that the tenant committed default in payment of the maktha, the first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 16 of the Act. The second respondent pleaded that it is started paying maktha to the Gram Panchayat. On the face of it, such a plea was untenable. Being the tenant of the first respondent, the second respondent was not at all entitled to pay rent to third parties. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, in case the second respondent received any demand from the petitioner herein, it was expected of him, to bring it to the notice of the first respondent. Being a tenant of the first respondent, the second respondent was not justified in paying maktha to the petitioner. Alternatively, the tenant could have filed an application for deposit of the maktha into the Court. The scope of enquiry in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act is very limited. It is only a dispute between a tenant and landlord in respect of an agricultural land, that can be adjudicated in such proceedings. The petitioner got impleaded in the A.T.C., which was filed for eviction, and projected its right and title. It did not answer the description of either landlord or tenant. The reason is that the petitioner did not induct the second respondent into possession as a tenant and thereby it is not a landholder. It was not even urged that the petitioner is a tenant. It did not answer the description of either landlord or tenant. The reason is that the petitioner did not induct the second respondent into possession as a tenant and thereby it is not a landholder. It was not even urged that the petitioner is a tenant. Further, it was not claiming, either through the first respondent or through the second respondent. If it had an independent right, it could have urged the same by instituting proceedings in a Civil Court or before any statutory authority. Either way, the intrusion of the petitioner into the proceedings initiated by the first respondent against the second respondent is totally untenable. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to work out its remedies on the basis of the rights, if any, that have accrued to it under the judgment of the Supreme Court in VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT'S case (supra) in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.