HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.398 OF 2001 & 443 OF 2001 Dated 3-12-2014 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.398 OF 2001 Between:
Inguva Srinivasulu And:
..Petitioner.
Namburu Radha Krishna Murthy.
…Respondent.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.443 OF 2001 Between:
Inguva Srinivasulu And:
..Petitioner.
Namburu Nageswara Rao.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.398 OF 2001 & 443 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions are preferred against orders of the appellate authority under A.P.Tenancy Act-cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur, whereunder orders of the Special Officer are confirmed.
In both these revisions, petitioner-landlord is same whereas respondents/tenants are brothers. Landlord filed two different tenancy petitions before the Special Officer, Tenali and the Special Officer, dismissed the eviction application on the ground that as the lands in issue are inam lands and tenants have protection as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXXVII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as “the Inams Act, 1956” for the sake of convenience) and aggrieved by same, appeals are preferred and appellant authority confirmed the dismissal of eviction petition. Challenging the said judgment, these two revisions are preferred.
Heard arguments.
The main argument of the advocate for revision petitioner is that protection under Section 11 of the Act is only for the tenants governed by Sections 8 and 9 of the Inams Act, 1956 and in respect of other tenants, the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act,1956 are applicable and therefore, both the Special Officer and appellate Authority committed error in interpreting provisions of Section 11 of the Inams Act, 1956.
He further submitted that both landlord and tenants were not issued any pattas under the provisions of the Inams Act, 1956 and therefore, relationship of landlord and tenants will continue and as the tenants failed to pay maktha, they are liable for eviction.
On the other hand, advocate for respondents submitted that Special Officer and appellate authority rightly held that protection under Section 11 of the Inams Act, 1956 is applicable to the present case and till it is finally decided that the tenants are not entitled for, they cannot be evicted under the provisions of Andhra Tenancy Act.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in these revisions is whether the order of the Special Officer and Judgment of the appellate authority are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
Admittedly, till now ryotwari pattas under the Inams Act, 1956 are not granted in favour of both parties.
Learned advocate for petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of this court in KOTVALA APPANA (DIED) BY
[1]
L.RS. v. MUMMINA MULAYYA ( ) for the proposition that
the protection under Section 11 of the Inams Act, 1956 is only for the cases falling under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act but not to other cases.
I have perused the above decision. In that case also, a similar point was raised and this court while deciding that point observed as follows:
“A careful reading of section 4 makes it abundantly plain that on the relevant dates if the tenants are found to be in occupation of the land, they have been declared as entitled to a ryotwari patta. Any other interpretation would be not in harmony with the scheme of the Act and would create various difficulties in the way.
For example, under section 5 of the Act, the tenants, who were in occupation of the land on 7th January, 1948, are entitled to be restored to occupation. It is not contemplated that they would be so restored only after they got the pattas. They can get themselves restored and apply for pattas. Likewise, the determination of one-third share under section 6 need not wait till the grant of patta. The grant of patta would follow the result of Section 6 and cannot precede it.
In support of the opposite view that the vesting of title in tenants takes place only after the pattas are granted to them under Section 7, reliance was placed on section 11. It was contended by Mr.Kodandaramayya, the learned Counsel for the respondent that according to section 11 the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956, are made applicable to a tenancy like the one in the present case. His contention therefore, was that till the pattas are granted the relationship of landlord and tenant would be deemed to continue and such relationship is governed by the Andhra Tenancy Act,1956 by virtue of section 11.
At first glance I thought that there is substance in this contention, but after a close analysis of section 11, I am satisfied that this argument cannot prevail. Section 11(1) makes the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act,1956, applicable to the tenancies in respect of inam lands governed by this Act. It may be noted that the words used are governed by this Act. What are the tenancies then which are governed by the Act? There can be little doubt that the reference is to the tenancies referred to in sections 8, 9 and 10 and not to any other tenancies. The tenancies not under the institution but under the inamdars have no relation to section 11.
I have already stated that section 8 confers permanent occupancy right on tenants in inam lands held by institutions in inam villages. Section 9 provides for procedure for evicting tenants who have been given permanent rights of occupancy under section 8 and section 10 permits the institutions to lease out the lands after eviction. These are provisions subject to which the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 have been made applicable to the tenancies governed by the Act. Since these tenancies only are governed by the Act, sub-section (1) of section 11 obviously refers to them alone.
No other provision of the Act was brought to my notice which governs the tenancy relating to the inamdar individually. No occupancy rights, permanent or otherwise, have been conferred on such tenants. On the other hand, they have been given two-thirds share absolutely giving one-third to the inamdar. That must put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant and not permit to continue unlike the tenancies held by the institutions. Therefore, whatever may be the relationship of inamdar with the tenant prior to the Act, the tenant has been given two-thirds share provided he falls within the purview of section 4. I do not therefore, think that section 11 (1) relates to the so- called relationship of landlord and tenant between the inamdar and the tenant who have been given absolute rights in one-third and two-thirds share respectively under section 4. There is therefore no warrant for the argument that the relationship of landlord and tenant, in spite of the fact that the law confers shares on them, still continues.”
From the above observation, it is clear that relationship of landlord and tenants will come to an end in view of the provisions of the Inams Act, 1956 and held that Section 11 protects the tenants from eviction. Exactly, the same was the observation of the Special Officer and the appellate authority.
On a scrutiny of the material and on a consideration of the principle laid down in the above referred decision, contention of the advocate for revision petitioner that protection under Section 11 of the Act is only for the cases falling under Sections 8 and 9 of the Inams Act, 1956 cannot be accepted and therefore, both the Special Officer and Appellant authority have not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the eviction petition by extending protection under Section 11 of the Act to the respondents herein.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in these revisions and the same are liable to be dismissed. However, liberty is given to both parties to pursue their remedies to get necessary ryotwari pattas under the Provisions of the Inams Act, 1956 if they are not granted, till now.
With this observation, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of both the revisions, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 3-12-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.398 OF 2001 & 443 OF 2001 Dated 3-12-2014
[1] 1968 An.W.R. page No.72