Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 617 (AP)

Medidi Pedaveerraju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-16

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. - This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "....to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the Respondent No.4 in demanding the Petitioner to vacate and hand over the lease hold agricultural land and trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the said land of an extent of Ac.1-92 cents in Sy.No.11 of P.Vemavaram Village, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District, despite the 121 months Letter of Understanding for cultivating the above land from 11.12.2019 to 11.11.2020, issued by the 4th Respondent in the name fo the petitioner and without issuing any notice of cancellation of the same or otherwise, as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural Justice and violation of the Fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India, by consequently directing the Respondents not to evict or dispossess the Petitioner from out of the land i.e., an extent of Ac.1-92 Cents in Sy.No.11 of P. Vemavaram Village, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District, except under due process of law, and pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. As the pleadings are completed the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing. This Court has heard Sri P Rajesh Babu learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent. 3. Counter Affidavit of the 4th respondent was filed since the 4th respondent is the main answering respondent. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the 4th respondent in demanding the petitioner to vacate the schedule land. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the 4th respondent which is a temple. His case is that one K Veera Swami is the Cultivating tenant of the land measuring Ac.1.926 cents in P Vemavarma village for more than 70 years. It is admitted that although the tenant is Veera Swami but the rents are being actually paid by the petitioner. His case is that one K Veera Swami is the Cultivating tenant of the land measuring Ac.1.926 cents in P Vemavarma village for more than 70 years. It is admitted that although the tenant is Veera Swami but the rents are being actually paid by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, states as the rents are being received without any objection, except in May 2020, he is in a jural relationship and is entitled to continue to be in possession of the property till his lease expires in November 2020. He claims to be in actual physical possession of the land. Therefore, a prayer is made for protection from forceful eviction 5. The Counter Affidavit of the 4th respondent clearly states that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the 4th respondent. It is mentioned that Veera Swami who was the tenant has actually vacated and handed over the property to the 4th respondent. It is also pleaded that an auction was conducted in 15.07.2020 and the bid was knocked down for a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- per annum. Therefore, it is asserted the petitioner has no right over the property and cannot seek any order from the Court. 6. The Petitioner's entire case rests upon Document-1, which is a Cultivation card issued as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Cultivation Act, 2019. Apart from this, receipts are also filed which show that Rs.20,000/- is paid in the name of Veera Swami by the present petitioner. All the receipts are in the name of Veera Swami only. Hence the contention of the respondentsthat there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is borne out by the receipts. The petitioners counsel relied upon the Document (Ex.P-1) to argue that it establishes the right of the petitioner as a tenant in the property. The document that is filed is signed only by Village Revenue Officer and not signed by Veera Raju or the owner of the property namely the 4th respondent. Even the petitioner's signature is not visible from the photocopy filed. 7. Even otherwise as per the Act, referred to above, there should be an agreement between the land owner and the cultivator. Section 3 (1), (2), (3) of the Act spelt out the manner in which the agreement is to be executed. Even the petitioner's signature is not visible from the photocopy filed. 7. Even otherwise as per the Act, referred to above, there should be an agreement between the land owner and the cultivator. Section 3 (1), (2), (3) of the Act spelt out the manner in which the agreement is to be executed. The Village Revenue official shall after the agreement is entered into issue a Crop Cultivator Right Card,which would enable the cultivator to secure a crop loan. The entire purpose of the Act 30 of 2019 is to facilitate or to permit the cultivator to obtain a loan. Clause 2 sub clause 7 defines "Crop Cultivator Rights Card" as follows- "The agreement between the land owner and the cultivator for a period of 11months countersigned by the Village Revenue Officer in the Village Secretariat." 8. Therefore, it is clear that if the petitioner wishes to rely upon the Crop Cultivators Right Card, it should be signed by the 4th respondent and the petitioner and also counter signed by the VRO. Therefore, if Document-1 is examined with reference to this definition it is clear the same does not meet the stipulation described and does not contain 2 out of the 3 signatures to spell out a lease or a tenancy. 9. A lease cannot be spelt out from the facts of this case. The owner has not signed the lease nor has the owner delivered the property. On the basis of a document that is only signed by the VRO a lease cannot be made out. 10. Apart from all of the above, the respondents have stated on oath that Veera Swami surrendered the property and that a fresh auction was actually conducted in July,2020 itself. This is not in away effectively countered. Additional documents filed include a letter from Veeraswami, wherein he states that he has surrendered the property on 01.05.2020 itself. 11. For all these reasons this Court holds that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of any order. A mandamus is not a matter of right. The petitioner should have a right in the property which is threatened by the respondent. Only then the Court can aid him. In the present case there is no privity of contract / lessor-lessee relationship. The crop cultivation card does not create a lease in favour of the petitioner. A mandamus is not a matter of right. The petitioner should have a right in the property which is threatened by the respondent. Only then the Court can aid him. In the present case there is no privity of contract / lessor-lessee relationship. The crop cultivation card does not create a lease in favour of the petitioner. Hence this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case. 12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed.