A tenant cannot recover possession of land voluntarily surrendered to the landholder without following the procedure prescribed under Section 19(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which requires a written surrender admitted before the Tahsildar and made in good faith.

Headnote:
HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 19(1) AND 32(1) - SURRENDER OF TENANCY - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENTS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, landholders, challenged the order of the District Revenue Officer, who allowed the appeal of the respondents, protected tenants, and directed the restoration of possession of 4 acres of land to them. The tenants had filed an application under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, alleging forcible dispossession. The Tahsildar dismissed the petition, finding that the tenants had voluntarily surrendered possession as a result of a compromise.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the surrender of tenancy by the tenants was not valid as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 19(1) of the Act, which mandates a written surrender admitted before the Tahsildar and made in good faith. The court clarified that Section 32(1) applies to all cases of loss of possession by a tenant, including voluntary surrender, and not just forcible dispossession.
Issues: 1. Whether a tenant can recover possession of land surrendered voluntarily to the landholder without following the procedure prescribed under Section 19(1) of the Act? 2. Whether Section 32(1) of the Act is limited to cases of forcible dispossession or extends to all cases of loss of possession by a tenant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 19(1) of the Act provides that a tenancy can be terminated by the tenant surrendering his rights to the landholder, but such surrender must be in writing, admitted before the Tahsildar, and made in good faith. This provision safeguards the tenant against surrendering rights under pressure or without proper consideration. 2. Section 32(1) of the Act allows a tenant entitled to possession of land under the Act to apply to the Tahsildar for possession. The court interpreted this provision broadly, holding that it applies to all cases of loss of possession by a tenant, including voluntary surrender, and not just forcible dispossession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the landholders, upholding the order of the District Revenue Officer. It held that the tenants were entitled to recover possession of the land as their tenancy had not been validly terminated due to the lack of a proper surrender under Section 19(1) of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings taken under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), The petitioners herein are the land-holders. The respondents are the protected tenants. The tenants filed an application under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 32 of the Act before the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar for possession of an extent of Ac 4. 00 cents of land in S. No. 65 situated in the village of Pedda Darapalli, Mahaboobnagar District, alleging that they are the protected tenants for the land covered by S. No, 65 measuring ac. 13-22 guntas and they were cultivating the land for about 4 to 5 years as protected tenants and were in possession of the same, that while so they were forcibly dispossessed of Ac, 4,00 of land out of the total extent of Act13-22 guntas and their possession of the same should be restored. The application was filed against three respondents (Land-holders) of whom the first respondent is the father and respondents 2 and 3 his sons. The two points which are now argued before me and raised by the respondents before the Tahsildar are that it is only respondents 2 and 3, namely, the sons are the pattadars for the land in question and the father, namely, the first respondent is not the pattadar and if the first respondent, not being the landholder dispossessed the petitioners from the land the petitioners cannot get any relief against him under Section 32 of the Act and it is not true to say that the petitioners were forcibly dispossessed from the land but it is only the petitioners who have surrendered the possession of that AC| 4. 00 cents of land as a result of a compromise entered into between them. The Tahsildar dismissed the petition by holding that that the tenants were not forcibly evicted but it is the tenants who have surrendered possession of the land to the landholders and the first respondent is not the landholder and if he has dispossessed the tenants from the land the remedy of the tenants is otherwise than taking proceedings under Section 32 (1) of the Act against the said order of the Tahsildar the tenants took the matter in appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

( 2 ) THE Revenue Officer in a short order fouad that under section 32 of the Act a protected tenant is entitled to get possession against anybody and also respondent No. 1 is the father and respondents 2 and 3 are his sons only and their contention that the land in question had fallen to the share of the respondents 2 and 3 is not supported by any registered partition deed though in the Phanl Pate rika for 1961 the names of the respondents 2 and 3 are shown as pattadars and the rights of the protected tenants to have possession of the land cannot be restricted if the entries in the revenue records are changed. By finding this point alone in favour of the tenants without considering the further case of the landholders that it is a case of surrender and not forcible dispossession of the tenants, the District revenue Officer allowed the appeal. It is against this order of the District Revenue Officer the landholders have preferred this civil revision Petition.

( 3 ) AS regards the point whether the action taken under Section 32 of the Act is maintainable against the first petitioner, namely, the father even if he is considered to be a third party is covered by a bench decision of this Court in Lingamiah Vs. Burra Yallaiah (l) wherein it was held that if a tenant in possession is forcibly dispossessed even by a third party (tresspasser) he has a right to apply under Section 32 of the Act for summary eviction of the trespasser and the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. Then what remains to be considered is the point whether there was a voluntary surrender of the land in question in favour of the land-holders by the tenants and therefore the tenants cannot maintain a petition under Section 32 of the Act to recover pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1970 Supreme(AP) 260

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : D.V.REDDY, O.CHINNAPPA REDDYVenkanna - AppellantVersusPichikuntal Buchamma - RespondentDecided On : 11-25-70

A tenant cannot recover possession of land voluntarily surrendered to the landholder without following the procedure prescribed under Section 19(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which requires a written surrender admitted before the Tahsildar and made in good faith.

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.V.REDDY, O.CHINNAPPA REDDY
Venkanna - Appellant
Versus
Pichikuntal Buchamma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-70