2016 Supreme(SC) 937

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
Dokiseela Ramulu – Appellant
Versus
Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11306 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14895 of 2010)
Decided On : 29-11-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
In view of Appellant and his ancestors being in continuous possession of the land in question from well before the notified date 17.01.1959 appellant automatically became entitled to a “ryotwari patta”.
Order passed by the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal must be regarded for fastening liability on ryot to pay the assessment or other dues and to facilitate the recovery of such revenue from him by the Government. Any decision rendered on nature or character of the land on that occasion will have to be regarded as incidental to and merely for the purpose of passing the order of granting or refusing to grant the patta and for no other purpose. Determination of nature of land has to be made by a civil court.

Headnote:(a) Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act 1948 – Section 3 and 11 – Suit land duly declared as an ‘Inam Estate’ – Appellant and his ancestors were held by Civil court to be in continuous possession of the land in question, well before the notified date – 17.01.1959 – Therefore in terms of Section 11, appellant automatically became entitled to a “ryotwari patta” – Therefore appellant cannot be treated as a lease holder subsisting on the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, namely, on 21.04.1987. (Para 14, 15)

       AIR 1979 SC 1320 – Referred

       (b) Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act 1948 – Section 56(1)(c) and 56(2) – the question as to who is the lawful ryot of any holding, if such question arises for decision after an estate is notified, has to be resolved by the Settlement Officer and by the Estates Abolition Tribunal – Order passed by the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal must be regarded for fastening liability on ryot to pay the assessment or other dues and to facilitate the recovery of such revenue from him by the Government – Any decision rendered on nature or character of the land on that occasion will have to be regarded as incidental to and merely for the purpose of passing the order of granting or refusing to grant the patta and for no other purpose – Determination of nature of land has to be made by a civil court – Held, decree passed in original suit filed by appellant was binding on the respondents. (Para 16)

       (1985) 4 SCC 10 – Relied upon

       (c) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Decree passed in favour of appellant on 31.10.1977 – a Respondents tried to interfere with appellant’s possession on 06.07.2005 – Appellant filing execution petition in 2007 – Limitation shall start from 06.07.2005 and the date of decree – Execution application, held, not barred by limitation. (Para 17)

       Facts of the case:

       It is the case of the appellant that he is a poor landless person, and that, his family has been in occupation of the suit land for many years since his forefathers had been cultivating the above land, which eventually passed on to him, and members of his joint family.

       The Rent Reduction Act was applied to Sangam Agraharam Village.

       The land which is subject matter of the instant controversy, was notified and published in Part-I of the State of Andhra Pradesh Gazette, under the 1948 Act.

       On 25.02.1959, the notified land in Sangam Agraharam village, was taken over by the State Government.

       The appellant having felt threatened of being dispossessed from the above agricultural land, over which he was a “ryotwari pattadar”, filed Original Suit.

       Simultaneously, Suit No.73/1974 was filed by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, asserting that the deity Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu – respondent no.1, was the absolute owner of the land in question, situated in Sangam Agraharam village. It was also the case of the Devasthanam, that the appellant was inducted into the above land, at an agreed rent of Rs.103-78 per year. It was the case of Devasthanam, that the appellant had executed a kadapa (rent-deed) in favour of the Devasthanam, on 29.11.1970. And that, the appellant had been cultivating the above land as a tenant under, the Devasthanam. Since the appellant had allegedly failed to pay rent for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73, despite several demands made by the Devasthanam, the above suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.311-34 being rent/damages, for use of the land in question, and also, for interest and cost thereon.

       Both the above suits were clubbed together. It was held that the appellant was a cultivating tenant in respect of the above agricultural land, long prior to the notified date (17.01.1959), and that, the appellant had occupancy rights over the above land, prior to taking over of the ‘Inam Estates’ by the State Government, under the 1948 Act. And further that, with effect from the notified date – 17.01.1959, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the erstwhile landowner Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu – respondent no.1, and the ryot stood terminated. And that, the appellant was entitled to a “ryotwari patta” for the suit land. This determination was recorded in Original Suit No.32/74. The Original Suit No.32/1974 came to be decreed which has attained finality.

       Finding of the Court:

       The appeal deserves to be allowed.

       Result: Appeal allowed.