Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, M.SESHACHALAPATI, O.CHINNAPPA REDDY
Radha Bai - Appellant
Versus
Banka Chinnayya - Respondent
Decided On : 10-05-67
TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT - SECTION 89(2) - SCOPE - POWERS OF AUTHORITIES - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - APPEAL - FILING BY NON-PARTY - LEAVE OF COURT - REMAND - POWER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landholder, filed a revision petition challenging an order of the Collector, who had set aside the order of the Tahsildar directing the surrender of possession of certain survey numbers to the landholder and remanded the case to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal. The main contentions of the petitioner were that Section 89(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act) does not confer on the authorities under the Act all powers under the Civil Procedure Code; that respondents 1 and 2, who were not parties to the proceedings before the Tahsildar, cannot file an appeal; and that the order of remand made by the Collector is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 92 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 89(2) of the Act confers on the Tahsildar, the Tribunal and the Collector all the powers conferred on the civil Courts by the Code of Civil Procedure, including the power to award costs. The Court further held that respondents 1 and 2, though not parties to the proceedings before the Tahsildar, could file an appeal before the Collector with the leave of the Court, and that the order of remand of the case made by the Collector is valid and sustainable as the power to remand is inherent in any Court or tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 89(2) of the Act confers on the authorities under the Act all powers under the Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether respondents 1 and 2, who were not parties to the proceedings before the Tahsildar, can file an appeal? 3. Whether the order of remand made by the Collector is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 92 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 89(2) of the Act confers on the Tahsildar, the Tribunal and the Collector all the powers conferred on the civil Courts by the Code of Civil Procedure, including the power to award costs. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, though not parties to the proceedings before the Tahsildar, could file an appeal before the Collector with the leave of the Court. 3. The order of remand of the case made by the Collector is valid and sustainable as the power to remand is inherent in any Court or tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition originally was heard by our learned Brother, Venkatesam, J. The scope and effect of Section 89 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) fell to be decided by him. In the arguments addressed before the learned Judge, various decisions of this Court were cited including two unreported Bench decisions, viz. , G. Veera Ready v. B. Venkayya, C. M. P. No. 5309 of 1960 in C. R. P. No. 2089 of 1957 (A. P.) and T. Shankaraiah v. Laxmamma, C. R. P. No. 1911 of 1963 (A. P. ). The first-decision was not brought to the notice of the Bench that decided the second case and also certain earlier decisions were pot brought to the notice of the Bench that decided the first case. The learned Judge though) that there was a conflict between the two unreported Bench decisions relating, to a matter of procedure and referred the revision petition to a Full Bench for disposal.
( 2 ) THE facts leading up to the filing of the present revision petition may be stated briefly: The revision petitioner, Radha Bai, is the landholder and pattadar of S. Nos. 205, 208, 209, 222 and 223 of Choudur village measuring 48 acres and 5 gunthas. These survey numbers were being cultivated by one Banka Pochaiah in whose name a tenancy certificate was duly issued. After his demise, his son and his widow (respondents 3 and 4 in this revision petition) filed an application in the office of the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, on 27-9-1961, surrendering the tenancy rights in the survey numbers aforesaid on the ground that, after the death of Pochaiah, they were not able to cultivate the lands. By an order dated 30-10-1961, the Tahsildar allowed the application for relinquishment of tenancy rights in favour of the pattadar and an order dated 8-11-1961 was issued to the Girdavar, Choudur Range to put the landholder, Radha Bai, in possession of the said survey numbers. Thereupon, Banka Chinnayya and Banka Jangilayya (respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition) filed an appeal in the Court of the Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar District, alleging that Banka Pochaiah in whose name the tenancy certificate was issued, and they constituted members of a joint family; that after the death of Pochaiah, they were cultivating the lands; that the surrender application given by Balamma and Manumaiah was not known to them; that, in any case, it was not binding on them; and that they may be permitted to file an appeal. The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, by his order dated 22-3-1962 held that, from the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 2-1-1962, it was clear that the appellants before him, Banka Chinnaiah and Banka Jangilaiah, were the brothers of Banka Pochaiah and Joint tenants with him of the holding in question and that they should be given permission to file an appeal. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Tahsildar directing the surrender of possession of the said survey numbers to the landholder and remanded the case to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. It is this order of the Joint Collector that is put in challenge in the present revision petition.
( 3 ) THE main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Balakrishnamurthy, before us are: (1) that Section 89 (2) of the Act does not confer on the authorities under the Act all powers under the Civil Procedure Code; (2) that respondents 1 and 2 cannot be regarded as claiming through respondents 3 and 4 within the meaning of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (3) that respondents 1 and 2, not being parties to the proceedings, cannot file an appeal; and (4) that the order of remand made by the Collector is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 92 of the Act.
( 4 ) ON the contrary, Mr. Madhava Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that respondents 1 and 2 could file an appeal before the Collector with the leave
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
