Back
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
D.S.R. VARMA, J.
Gadda Balaiah – Appellant
Versus
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others - Respondents
CRP Nos. 6708 and 1200 of 2003
Decided on : 07-10-2005
Headnote:
A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 – Sections 13,19,30,30(1),37,37-A,38,38(6),38-A,38-D and 38-D(1) - Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Act, 1972 – Challenge - Granting sale certificates - Registered sale deed - A total extent of Ac. guntas in part of Village, Ranga Reddy District, originally belongs to one - He purchased said lands from one - Later on he died leaving behind three daughters - Predecessors of petitioners were actually tenants of at time of purchase of land by said and continued in same capacity - Later on one Corporation purchased said land from daughters of said through a registered sale deed and also got its name mutated in Revenue Records - After advent of Agricultural Land Ceiling Laws in State as are being under law said Corporation filed a declaration before Land Revenue Tribunal - Tribunal after consideration of holding of declaration held that was declared to be a surplus holder for an extent of guntas out of total extent of guntas without following procedure of conducting an enquiry contemplated under Section 13 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973(for as to whether said lands were covered by protected tenants or not - Whether petitioners were declared as protected tenants of lands concerned herein including S. Nos., and if so under what provision and when? and Did petitioners or any of them or their predecessors-in-interest surrender their tenancy rights according to law and if so which of them when and in which proceedings? - whether said lands were covered by protected tenants or not - Held, Subject lands are covered by protected tenancy rights under Section 37-A of Tenancy Act and four persons out of original protected tenants who are alive as on date of enquiry never surrendered their rights. - Holding in effect that rights of petitioners as protected tenants under Section 37-A were established and that alleged surrender of tenancy rights was not proved. Further liberty was given to the petitioners to effect that they are entitled to purchase said lands under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act and in view of fact that applications were already filed official respondents were directed to dispose of same within a prescribed period - Most of sale certificate holders under Section 38(6) of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 as discussed in the earlier paras have executed about (588) Registered Sale deeds in favour of different persons in suit land and other lands - It is nothing but relinquished their Protected Tenancy Rights under Section 19 of Tenancy Act as discussed in earlier paras - Landholder and purchaser together had got over two mandatory provisions in a methodically and make believe manner even during subsistence of judgment in passed by a learned single Judge of this Court as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court through a judgment that too without there being any right to tenant to alienate as prohibited under Section 30 of Tenancy Act - Section 38(D) prohibits landholder from alienating tenanted land to third parties - If landholder intends to sell land he must give notice in writing of his intention to protected tenant - First offer must be given to protected tenant - It is only when protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase landholder could sell the land to third parties - Alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal effect - While interpreting Section 5(3)(b) and Rule 2-A of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and held that amendment under challenge therein was brought with a view to protecting tenant on two fronts against two types of danger one against possible coercion undue influence and trickery proceedings from landlord and other against tenants own ignorance improvidence and attitude of helpless self-resignation stemming from his weaker position in tenant-landlord relationship and therefore Sections 15 and 29 are mandatory in nature and any departure from this would make surrender invalid - Beneficent purpose and importance of these provisions for efficacious implementation of general scheme of Act all unerringly lead to conclusion that they were intended to be mandatory - Ordered Dismissed
ORDER :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Since both the civil revision petitions are inter-related and the subject-matter being the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. C.R.P. No. 6708 of 2003 is directed against the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (for brevity “the Joint Collector”), in Case No. F2/4902/2001, dated 9-12-2003, wherein and whereby the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District (for brevity “the R.D.O.”) granting sale certificates under Section 38(6) of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity “the Tenancy Act”) in respect of lands admeasuring 37.16 guntas was set aside.
3. The R.D.O., granted sale certificates in favour of the petitioners for an extent of Ac. 37.16 guntas, situate in S. Nos. 51, 52 and 53 part of Gachibowli Village, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No. G/3640/1996, dated 284-2001. The Respondent No. 18 is a Society and Respondent Nos. 8 to 17 are its members who filed an appeal before the Joint Collector having felt aggrieved by the order passed by the R.D.O.
4. The Joint Collector after hearing both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances set aside the order passed by the R.D.O., through the impugned proceedings, dated 9-12-2003. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. For better appreciation, the facts shorn of and are not in dispute are as under:
A total extent of Ac. 157.03 guntas in S. Nos. 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 51 to 53 part of Gachibowli Village, Ranga Reddy District, originally belongs to one Sri Elias Burni. He purchased the said lands from one Smt. Lingamma on 30/02/Fasli. Later on he died leaving behind three daughters. The predecessors of the petitioners were actually the tenants of said Smt. Lingamma at the time of purchase of the land by the said Sri Burni and continued in the same capacity. Later on, one Kastopa Corporation purchased the said land from the daughters of said Sri Burni through a registered sale deed and also got its name mutated in the Revenue Records. After the advent of Agricultural Land Ceiling Laws in the State, as are being under the law, the said Kastopa Corporation filed a declaration before the Land Revenue Tribunal (for brevity “the Tribunal”).
6. The Tribunal after consideration of the holding of declaration held that Mr. R.R. Kamdar was declared to be a surplus holder for an extent of Ac. 114.27 guntas out of the total extent of Ac. 190.17 guntas without following the procedure of conducting an enquiry contemplated under Section 13 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity “the Land Reforms Act”), as to whether the said lands were covered by the protected tenants or not.
7. It is further not in dispute that an extent of Ac. 31.43 guntas of land in S. Nos. 46 and 47 was allotted to one Sri G.S. Raju, Maharshi Institute of Creative Intelligence, Masabtank, Hyderabad, under G.O.Ms. No. 594, Revenue (Q) Department, dated 20-4-1979 (for short “G.O.Ms. No. 594”), for a long lease of 30 years. Having come to know the said fact, the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 6708 of 2003, who are protected tenants, filed W.P. No. 4590 of 1980 before this Court challenging the said G.O.Ms. No. 594.
8. A learned single Judge of this Court formulated two questions for determination by the competent authority, which are as under:
(1) Whether the petitioners were declared as protected tenants of the lands concerned herein including S. Nos. 46 and 47, and if so, under what provision and when? and
(2) Did the petitioners or any of them or their predecessors-in-interest surrender their tenancy rights according to law and, if so, which of them, when and in which proceedings?
9. It was further observed by the learned single Judge of this Court that the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 594 shall not be given effect to pending passing of order pursuant to the abovementioned directions and that implementation of said G.O.Ms. No. 594 woul
