2021 Supreme(SC) 537

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Thota Sridhar Reddy & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mandala Ramulamma & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No. 2507 of 2021
Decided On : 01-10-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Protected tenancy could be terminated only in a manner known to law.
(2) Once a certificate of ownership is granted which is required to be published in Government Gazette, land stands transferred and vested in protected tenant as a full owner of such land.

Headnote:

(A) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Sections 34, 36, 38-E and 44 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Section 28 – Annulment of occupancy rights granted to purchaser – Purchaser seeks restoration of occupancy rights – Protected tenancy could be terminated only in a manner known to law – In absence of such valid termination of ‘protected tenancy’, interest of such protected tenant continues to be operative and subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and representatives who could then claim restoration of possession – Even if protected tenant had lost possession, without there being valid termination of his status as a protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act – Protected tenants are placed at much higher pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of land, right has been given to him to seek possession later. (Paras 30 and 31)

(B) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Section 28 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Sections 34, 36, 38-E and 44 – Annulment of occupancy rights granted to purchaser – Purchaser seeks restoration of occupancy rights – Once a certificate of ownership is granted which is required to be published in Government Gazette, land stands transferred and vested in protected tenant as a full owner of such land – Such certificate is final subject to rights of landowner under Tenancy Act which is only to seek compensation – Purchasers have taken steps to procure surrender of tenancy rights, realizing that such surrender cannot be orally or by executing a sale deed – It was a cover up operation initiated by purchaser but same was still against mandate of statute as finding of surrender has to be recorded by Tehsildar – Since, neither oral surrender nor surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by Tehsildar, subsequent surrender approved by Mandal Revenue Officer is a nullity and bears no legal effect as such surrender is in contravention of statutory provisions – After grant of ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of Tenancy Act, protected tenants are deemed to be owners – Once protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act – Such certificate was also not disputed by purchasers – Title of protected tenants is complete and ownership unambiguously vests with them – Protected tenant shall be entitled to restoration of possession in terms of explanation to Section 38-E (1) read with Section 32 of Tenancy Act.. (Paras 36, 38, 47 and 51)

(C) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Section 33 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Section 38-E – Overriding effect of Inams Act – Ownership certificate granted under Tenancy Act would prevail over grant of occupancy rights certificate under Inams Act – Both Acts operate in different spheres. Inams Act deals with land owner, whereas Tenancy Act protects rights of tiller i.e., tenant including a protected tenant – An Inamdar under Inams Act would not have any right of allotment of occupancy rights in view of overriding effect given to Section 38-E. (Para 49)

Facts of the case:

Present two appeals are directed against the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh whereby revision under Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was allowed on 3.6.2019 while setting aside the order dated 19.2.1982 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy rights to Shri Thota Balakrishna Reddy, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants2 in respect of land measuring 31.05 guntas falling in survey Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla as well as the order dated 4.12.2017 passed by the Joint Collector whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the protected tenant, represented by Mandala Ramulamma, wife of Mandala Yettaiah3 was dismissed. The resultant effect of such order of the High Court was that the occupancy rights granted to the purchaser stood annulled. Question required to be examined herein is as to whether the stand of the purchaser that protected tenant had surrendered the tenancy rights orally and which was later on accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.1.1989 is legal and valid and not in contravention of provisions of the Tenancy Act. The ancillary question would be whether the purchaser could claim occupancy rights on 19.2.1982 when the ownership rights were transferred in favour of protected tenant on 20.3.1975. It is also to be ascertained whether there was any transferrable interest in the property which could be granted to the purchaser in 1982.

Findings of Court:

Ownership rights were granted to the protected tenant in respect of land measuring 19 acres and 16 guntas whereas occupancy rights have been granted in respect of the land measuring 31.05 guntas including of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla on 19.2.1982. Therefore, the said occupancy rights certificate in favor of the purchaser shall be valid in respect of the land falling under Survey Nos. 61 and 62, which is not the land claimed by the protected tenant as part of their tenancy. The Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land falling in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 is null and void and inoperative.

Result : Appeals dismissed.