1993 Supreme(AP) 474

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDY, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
N.Sudershan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Kannamma - Respondent
Decided On : 10-08-93

The provisions of Ss. 4 to S of the Inam Abolition Act for registration of persons in possession of inam lands was unaffected by the date of vesting. Further, S. 33 of the Inams Abolition Act specifically saved the mutual rights and obligations of an Inamdar and his tenants to the extent to which they were not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act.

Headnote:

INAM ABOLITION ACT - TENANCY - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - VESTING OF INAM LANDS - RELEVANCE OF DATES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 3(2) AND 33 OF THE ACT - EFFECT OF APPELLATE DECREE ON TENANCY RIGHTS - VALIDITY OF SALE BY INAMDAR'S WIDOW - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT TO DECIDE TENANCY DISPUTES - APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from the grant of inam lands to Narsing Rao in 1925. In 1953, the military authorities took possession of the land without the consent of Radhamma, the widow of Narsing Rao. In 1963, Radhamma filed an application before the District Revenue Officer seeking correction of the survey record to include her name as the owner of the land. Veerayya, the lessee from Kannamma, executed a lease deed allegedly on the basis of an occupancy certificate as a protected tenant under the provisions of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Kannamma, the 1st petitioner, died on 3-10-88, leaving behind her two daughters who are petitioners 2 and 3. On the death of Radhamma, the 4th respondent was impleaded as her legal representative. Veerayya, the lessee from Kannamma having died, his Legal Representatives were brought on record as respondents 5 to 8.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that there were two relevant dates for the vesting of inam lands in the State under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act (Act 8 of 1955): 20-7-55 when Cls. (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of S. 3, and 1-11-1973 the other clauses viz., (d), (g), (h) and (i), came into force. The Court also held that the provisions of Ss. 4 to S of the Inam Abolition Act for registration of persons in possession of inam lands was unaffected by the date of vesting. Further, the Court held that S. 33 of the Inams Abolition Act specifically saved the mutual rights and obligations of an Inamdar and his tenants to the extent to which they were not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Collector erred in misconstruing the lease deed of 1320 Fasli by Narsing Rao in favor of Namassivayam and in not locating and identifying the land on the ground? 2. Whether the assumption that Veerayya was in possession on 20-7-55, the date of vesting under the Inams Abolition Act, was erroneous? 3. Whether the assumption that patta certificate was issued in favor of Veerayya under Section 38-F of the Tenancy Act was incorrect? 4. Whether the Sethwar proceedings which ended in favor of Radhamma, the widow of the original Inamdar in respect of S. Nos. 602 and 603 were binding on the petitioners as Kannamma was not a party to those proceedings? 5. Whether the claims of Kannamma for the entire extent of Ac. 49. 39 guntas were wrongly ignored by the Collector? 6. Whether the rights if any Sudershan Reddy had as a successor-in-interest of Veerayya also had met the same fate on the death of Kannamma, in view of the appellate decree in A. S. 79/63? 7. Whether the learned single Judge erred in law in directing the District Collector to consider the matter afresh after having held that the transfer in favor of the first appellant by Sri Machikanti Veeraiah and late Radhamma was invalid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the District Collector erred in misconstruing the lease deed of 1320 Fasli by Narsing Rao in favor of Namassivayam and in not locating and identifying the land on the ground. The Court found that the District Collector had ignored additional material papers filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, which formed part of the record of the District Collector and were referred to in the earlier order dated 13-10-81 passed by the Court. 2. The Court held that the assumption that Veerayya was in possession on 20-7-55, the date of vesting under the Inams Abolition Act, was erroneous. The Court found that Kannamma had produced evidence indicating that she was on record as a tenant till 1953 when the military authorities were alleged to have taken over the land. The Court also noted that the name of Radhamma was shown in the records as the person in possession only in 1971 when the Sethwar proceedings were finalized by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. The Court held that the assumption that patta certificate was issued in favor of Veerayya under Section 38-F of the Tenancy Act was incorrect. The Court found that the learned single Judge had examined the factual and legal aspects of the submissions which were urged before him and found that there was no such declaration that Machikanti Veerayya was a permanent or protected tenant. 4. The Court held that the Sethwar proceedings which ended in favor of Radhamma, the widow of the original Inamdar in respect of S. Nos. 602 and 603 were not binding on the petitioners as Kannamma was not a party to those proceedings. The Court found that an order which passed without notice to a party who was found to be in possession in 1953 and who had effectively corresponded with the Army authorities in 1953-54 on the basis of such possession could not bind that person. 5. The Court held that the claims of Kannamma for the entire extent of Ac. 49. 39 guntas were wrongly ignored by the Collector. The Court found that Kannamma had filed a suit impleading Kannamma and Veerayya as parties, which ended in a declaration that the lease in favor of Veerayya would enure only during the lifetime of Kannamma and thereafter it would be invalid. 6. The Court held that the rights if any Sudershan Reddy had as a successor-in-interest of Veerayya also had met the same fate on the death of Kannamma, in view of the appellate decree in A. S. 79/63. The Court found that Veerayya was not a permanent or protected tenant, as he could not have been in view of the judgment in A. S. 79/63, and therefore all arguments based on the assumption that the right of the protected tenant Veerayya was unassailable had necessarily to fail. 7. The Court held that the learned single Judge did not err in law in directing the District Collector to consider the matter afresh after having held that the transfer in favor of the first appellant by Sri Machikanti Veeraiah and late Radhamma was invalid. The Court found that the learned single Judge had entered findings on the grounds urged by the petitioners and the defense of the respondents, and that those findings were not manifestly erroneous in fact or law.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The District Collector was directed to consider the matter afresh in strict compliance with the direction and subject to the findings entered by the learned single Judge.