Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, B.K.SOMASEKHARA
Pulikandam Subba Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Gorantal Veeraswamy - Respondent
Decided On : 12-30-94
TENANCY ACT - CULTIVATING TENANT - CONTINUANCE OF TENANCY - SALE OF LAND BY LANDLORD TO THIRD PARTY WITHOUT GIVING FIRST OPTION TO PURCHASE TO TENANT - SALE VOIDABLE AT OPTION OF TENANT - TENANT'S RIGHT TO RESUME POSSESSION OF LAND - EQUITABLE ORDER BY COURT DIRECTING LANDLORD TO PAY SALE CONSIDERATION TO TENANTS AND TENANTS TO EXECUTE SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF LANDLORD - ORDER HELD TO BE JUST AND EQUITABLE.
Fact of the Case:
A cultivating tenant, Veeraswamy, filed a petition under Section 12 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act 18/56), to declare that he was the cultivating tenant of the schedule land within the meaning of the Act, to order the resumption of the schedule land in his favor, and to deliver the actual physical possession of the same to him. The petition was dismissed by the District Munsif-cum-Special Officer, but was allowed by the District Judge on appeal. The appellants, who were the purchasers of the land from the landlord, challenged the order of the District Judge by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Veeraswamy was a cultivating tenant of the schedule land at the relevant time and continued as such till the sale transactions between the appellants and the landlord. The court also found that the sale of the land by the landlord to the appellants was in violation of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1974 (Act 39/74), which gave the cultivating tenant a right of first option to purchase the land.
Issues: 1. Whether Veeraswamy was a cultivating tenant of the schedule land at the relevant time and continued as such till the sale transactions between the appellants and the landlord? 2. Whether the sale of the land by the landlord to the appellants was in violation of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1974 (Act 39/74)? 3. Whether the order of the learned single Judge directing the landlord to pay the sale consideration to the tenants and the tenants to execute a sale deed in favor of the landlord was just and equitable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Veeraswamy was a cultivating tenant of the schedule land at the relevant time and continued as such till the sale transactions between the appellants and the landlord. The court relied on the following factors: * Veeraswamy had been in possession of the land for a long period of time and had been paying rent to the landlord. * The landlord had not taken any steps to terminate Veeraswamy's tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act. * The sale of the land to the appellants was in violation of Section 15 of the Tenancy Act, which gave Veeraswamy a right of first option to purchase the land. 2. The court held that the sale of the land by the landlord to the appellants was in violation of Section 15 of the Tenancy Act, which gave Veeraswamy a right of first option to purchase the land. The court noted that the landlord had not given Veeraswamy any notice of his intention to sell the land and had not offered him the first option to purchase the land. 3. The court held that the order of the learned single Judge directing the landlord to pay the sale consideration to the tenants and the tenants to execute a sale deed in favor of the landlord was just and equitable. The court noted that the order would allow Veeraswamy to purchase the land at a fair price and would also protect the interests of the appellants, who had paid the purchase price to the landlord.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned single Judge.
( 1 ) : The decision of a learned single Judge in w. P. No. 525/88 dated 10-10-1988 is assailed in this writ appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with some directions. The appellants are the writ petitioners. Respondents herein were also the respondents in the writ petition.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Gorantla veeraswamy claiming to be the cultivating tenant of the agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 4. 15 in Survey No. 116 of Prakasam district, alleged that he was dispossessed by respondent No. 2 along with the present appellants and filed A. T. C. No. 1/81 before the District Munsif-cum special Officer, Addanki under Section 12 (3) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the act , to declare that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule land within the meaning of the said Act, to order the resumption of the schedule land in his favour and to deliver the actual physical possession of the same to him. It was resisted by the present appellants and respondent No. 2 Gudluri Sivasankara narayana. The learned District Munsif after holding an enquiry dismissed the petition on 31-12-1985. Gorantla Veeraswamy took the matter in appeal to the appellate authority namely the learned district Judge, Ongole in A. T. A. 17/86 which came to be allowed on 9-12-1987 thereby allowing the petition of Gorantal veeraswamy filed under Section 12 (3) of the Act and directing resumption and restoration of possession of the schedule land to him from the respondents therein. The appellants who were thus aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge challenged it in W. P. No. 525/88 before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which came to be disposed 10-10-1988 by the learned single Judge thereby resulting in this appeal by them.
( 3 ) THE uncontroverted facts and controversies may be subject to a brief record:
( 4 ) ONE Ramayya and Sundaramma are the parents of Gudluri Sivasankara narayana. They are dead. Ramayya was pre-deceased by his wife. She died on 1-1-1990. Schedule land in S. No. 116 has an extent of Ac. 11-50. Out of that Ac 4-50 in two pieces belonged to Sundaramtna and Ramaiah. Out of that Ac. 4-50, sundaramma was the owner of 63 cents on the western side whereas, Ramayya was the owner of Ac. 3. 87 adjacent to it. When his father died, Gudhiri Sivasankara narayana was still a child aged about three years. Therefore, Snndaranima was managing the entire schedule land of ac. 4-50 cents till she died. It appears that after her death Sivasankara Narayana managed the same. Veeraswamy claimed to be a tenant in the schedule land under snndaranima and thereafter under Sivasankara Narayana for more than 15 years prior to the date of the petition by paying the agreed annual rent. The last agreed rent was Rs. 2,200/- for the year 1979-80. He pleaded that he continued as a tenant within the meaning of the provisions of the act. He pleaded that he wanted to start the cultivation for the agricultural year, 1981 after the onset of the monsoon during the month of 1980, but Sankara Narayana sent a message that he would personally cultivate the land for the said year. The 1st respondent waited for the same and therefore kept quite without proceeding with the agricultural operations of the schedule land during the said year. But it was found that the present appellants - pulikandam Subba Reddy and Pulikandam veera Reddy who are found to be cultivating the land during August, 1980 and due to the exchange of notices and the verification in the Sub-Registrar s office, it was disclosed that Sivasankara Narayana and his brothers and sisters viz. , volindandla Seetaramamma, Alivelu, P. Rukmini, vasumathi and Swarajyalakshmi have sold the lands in favour of Puliknadam venkata Subbareddy and Puliknadam veemreddy under a registered sale deed dated 21-8-80. Therefore, it was found that sivasankara Narayana who resumed the land for personal cultivation did not cultivate the lan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
