The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is reserved for exceptional circumstances and should not be exercised when alternative statutory remedies exist; it cannot act as an appellate court to correct errors or substitute its view for that of subordinate tribunals.

ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the very numbering of A.T.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Officer of Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court at Avanigadda, Krishna District.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that:

The petitioner is a third party. Respondent No.1 is the tenant and respondent No.2 is the landlord in A.T.C No.2 of 2024. Respondent No.1-tenant filed the said A.T.C, under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act seeking declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of petition schedule property and for permanent injunction. Along with the said petition, he also filed I.A.No.101 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent/landlord, his men and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by the petitioner/tenant until disposal of the main A.T.C. The Tribunal ordered notice and directed the tenant to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At that stage, the petitioner, claiming to have certain rights over the property, filed the present Civil Revision Petition solely on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the A.T.C, as Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 was repealed in the year 2022 by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature vide Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Repeal Act, 2022 (Act No.21 of 2022).

3. Heard Sri Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for respondent No.1-tenant and Sri T.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2-landlord.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain any cases under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 , in such circumstances, this Court has to vitiate all the proceedings arising out of A.T.C No.2 of 2024 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the Tribunal erroneously entertained the petition filed by respondent No.1, numbered it as A.T.C.No.2 of 2024 under the A.P Tenancy Act and granted temporary injunction erroneously under the repealed Act. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the A.T.C.No.2 of 2024. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kanaklata Das and others v. Naba Kumar Das, (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 352

5. On the other hand, Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for respondent No.1/tenant and Sri T.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2/landlord contended on similar lines that the petitioner has no locus to file the present Civil Revision Petition, as he is not a party to the said A.T.C. They further submit that if the petitioner has any grievance, he has to come on record in the said A.T.C by filing an appropriate application and raise his objections therein. As such, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the decisions in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675, Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329 and P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani and others in Civil Appeal No.739 of 2026