*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

+ C.R.P. No.3016 of 2015

% 03.01.2025

Between:

Mattparthy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana,

E.G.District. ...Petitioner

And

Nalli Sarojini E G Dist 9 Others and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan

Counsel for the Respondent(S): Sri Ms.Sindhoora VNL for

Ms. Gnanusha,

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1 2005 SCC Online Chh 171

2 (2021) 2 SCC 718 3 (1999) 3 SCC 457 4(1976) 3 SCC 749 5(2001) 6 SCC 163

6(2019) 20 SCC 633

7(2006) 5 SCC 353 8(1999) 3 SCC 573

91990 1 ALT 588

101995 (3) ALD 1000

112016 (3) ALD 235 12 (2022) 1 SCC 115

APHC010814372015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3016/2015 Between:

Mattparthy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, E.g.dist ...PETITIONER AND Nalli Sarojini E G Dist 9 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VAKATI VENKATA GNANUSHA

2. SINDOORA VNL The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3016 of 2015 ORDER:-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Judgment passed in A.T.A.No.2 of 2012, dated 10.03.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, in reversing the order and decree, dated 16.07.2010 passed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2005.

3. The scheduled of properties consists of two items of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1-86 cents and Ac.1-54 cents. The Petitioner had filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2005, under Sections 10 and 15 read with Section 16 of A.P. (Andhra Area)Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking declaration as statutory tenant and for preferential right to purchase the scheduled property.

4. The Respondent No.1 was the landlord. The original owner by name Uppaganti Suranna had orally leased out the scheduled property to the father of the Petitioner. After the death of the original landlord, the father of the Petitioner continued the leasehold cultivation on same conditions. When the father of the Petitioner was in old age, the Petitioner and his brother by name Radha Krishna approached the Respondent No.1/landlord and asked him to lease the scheduled property and the same was accepted by the Respondent No.1. The father of the Petitioner died on 07.04.2002 and the brother of the Petitioner expressed his inability to do leasehold cultivation and thereby, the Petitioner became the sole cultivating tenant of the scheduled property.

5. It was pleaded that the Petitioner was regular in paying rents and there was no default. While so, for the year 2000-2001, the Petitioner tried to pay rentals through Demand Draft, but Respondent No.1 refused to receive the same and Respondent No.1 insisted for payment of rent in cash. Accordingly, the Petitioner paid the said amount for the following year also. On 10.07.2003, the Respondent No.1 got issued a legal notice making certain allegations against the Petitioner and a reply was issued thereto.

6. While so, on 09.04.2005, when the Petitioner was harvesting 2^nd crop of the scheduled property with the help of his family members and coolies, all the Respondents accompanied by about 50 persons entered into the scheduled property with deadly weapons and shouted that they purchased the petition schedule property from the Respondent No.1 and that the Petitioner should give up his tenancy rights. Though the Petitioner informed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram and Mandal Revenue Officer, Razole, over phone and also gave a complaint to the Police, no action was taken as mediation was proposed on 10.04.2005. The Petitioner had realised that a sale deed dated 08.04.2005 was