1979 Supreme(SC) 128

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Muddada Chayanna, Appellant
Versus
Karnam Narayana and another etc. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1760-1763 of 1969, D/- 14-2-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Vepa P. Sarthi, Sr. Advocate (Mr. A. V. Rangam. Advocate with him), for Appellant; respondent Ex Parte.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Andhra tenancy Act – Sections 12, 13, 14, 15 – Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 – Sections 55, 56 – Eviction – Petitioner who lost before Subordinate Tribunals and High Court is the appellant in this appeal by special leave – Alleging that he was the landlord and that the respondents were his tenants in respect of certain lands in Bommika village, the appellant filed a petition before the Tehsildar, Pathapatnam under Section 13 of the Andhra tenancy Act for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent. – Respondents pleaded that the lands were situated in an Inam Estate which had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and that, they and their ancestors, who had occupancy rights were always in cultivating possession of the lands. – It was also pleaded that after the taking over of the estate by the Government there was no longer any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. – Tehsildar dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground, among others, that the respondents had occupancy rights in the land. – Landlord preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali. – Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the appeal on the ground that the petition for eviction was not maintainable since the question as to who was the lawful ryot in respect of any holding in an estate had to be decided by the Settlement Officer under S. 56 (1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, and that the decision of such question was within the exclusive competence of the Settlement Officer. – A Revision petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 227 of the Constitution was dismissed by the High Court again for the reason that the question as to who was entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta had to be decided by the Settlement Officer under Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and that the decision of such question was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer. – Appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court – Held, Court think that the approach of the Full Bench was wrong. Apart from the fact that Secs. 55 and 56 (1) (a), (b) and (c) occur under the heading "Miscellaneous", and, therefore,a contextual interpretation may not be quite appropriate, the Full Bench overlooked the serious anomaly created by its conclusion. – Anomaly is that while express provision is found in Sec. 15 of the Act of the adjudication of claim by landholders for the grant of ryotwari pattas, there is, if the Full Bench is correct, no provision for the adjudication of claim by ryots for the grant of ryotwari pattas. – It would indeed be anomalous and ludicrous and reduce the Act to an oddity, if the Act avowedly aimed at reform by the conferment of ryotwari pattas on ryots and the abolition of intermediaries is to be held not to contain any provision for the determination of the vital question as to who was the lawful ryot of a holding. – Object of the Act is to protect ryots and not to leave them in the wilderness. – When the Act provides a machinery in Section 56 (1) (c) to discover who the lawful ryot of a holding was, it is not for the Court to denude the Act of all meaning by confining the provisions to the bounds of Secs. 55 and 56 (1) (a) and (b) on the ground of "contextual interpretation". – Interpretation of a statute, contextual or otherwise must further and not frustrate the object of the statute. – Court is, therefore, of the view that Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 85) (FB) was wrongly decided in so far as it held that ambit of Sect. 56 (1) (c) was controlled by Sec. 55 and S. 56 (1) (a) and (b). – Court do not think it necessary to consider the matter in further detail in view of the elaborate consideration which has been given to the case by the later Full Bench of five Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T. Munnaswami Naidu v. R. Venkata Reddi (AIR 1978 Andhra Pra 200) except to add that to adopt the reasoning of the Full Bench of three Judges in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya would lead to conflict of jurisdiction and the implementation of the Act would be thrown into disarray. – Appeal Dismissed