2009 (12) TMI 1050 - SC - Indian Laws

Claim for Restoration of possession - issuance of certificate - predecessor-in-interest of the appellants claimed to be protected tenants and sought ownership certificates to become full owners of the suit land - Orders passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ( The Act 1950 ) - Validity of the tenancy certificate u/s 38-E (2) - HELD THAT - This judgment and order of the High Court also attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondents any further. in our view, the question of reconsideration of the validity of the tenancy certificate u/s 38-E (2) so far as the appellant nos. 1 3 are concerned, could not arise in any subsequent proceedings whatsoever. More so, the entitlement of the said appellant nos. 1 3 to claim restoration of possession also cannot be reopened/questioned, as their entitlement to that effect had attained finality as the judgment and order of the High Court, wherein, their right to claim restoration of possession had been upheld, was not challenged by the respondents any further. Thus, it was not permissible for the High Court to re-open the issue in respect of all the appellants as to whether they were entitled for making the applications for restoration of possession. There can be no doubt that once a protected tenant gets a certificate of ownership u/s 38-E(2) of the Act 1950, he has a right to apply for restoration of possession to him if he has been dispossessed. The protected tenant has a right to ask for summary eviction of trespasser. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration as under what circumstances the respondents had been claiming their right to object to the grant of certificates to the appellants and, as to whether the alleged sale deed which had never been produced in any Court, and which was admittedly in contravention of Section 47 of the Act, could give any cause of action to the respondents as, the transaction itself remains inconsequential and ineffective rather, void ab initio. The respondents also could not explain as since what date or year they had been in possession of the land in dispute. Before the RDO, the case of the respondents was that they had been in possession of suit land in pursuance of decree of Civil Court passed in OS No.5/1963. The Order of the RDO reveals that the respondents had claimed before him that they were in possession of the suit land since Ist June, 1950. The High Court in its judgment has taken note of the pleadings taken by the respondents that they had purchased the suit land from original pattedar Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1954. However, it is not stated therein, that they had been put in possession of said land. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has further taken note of the pleadings taken by respondents that Smt. Ayesha Begum, the original land holder offered to sell the entire land to the father of the respondents in the year 1962 and it was so purchased by him for valuable consideration. From the order of Appellate Authority, it is evident that the pleadings before Appellate Authority had been that the respondents were in continuous possession of suit land measuring 17 acres and 20 guntas since last 50 years. The pleadings taken by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in earlier writ petition decided, that they purchased the said land in the year 1955, for valuable consideration. While deciding the case after remand, the RDO in its judgment and order has taken note of the pleadings taken by respondents that the father of the respondents purchased the said land from Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1965. Thus, it is evident that respondents even today are not aware as to what is their case exactly and on what basis they claim the relief. The copy of alleged sale deed or agreement to sell has never been produced before any Court or Authority. It becomes well nigh, impossible to determine as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents ever purchased the suit property and even if it was so, admittedly, the transaction was void being in contravention of Section 47 of the Act 1950. More so, at the time of argument it was pointed out that respondents have entered into compromise with appellant no.3 in the year 2003 and a rectification deed had been prepared. This is an indication that no valid title had ever passed in favour of respondents, otherwise there was no occasion for them to enter into a compromise with appellant no.3. In such a fact-situation the court is under an obligation to do substantial justice even if there are some technical points involved in the case. The Act 1950, being beneficial legislation is to be construed liberally and rights of the tenants are required to be protected. Hence, the appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. Both the applications for substitution of legal representatives/lateral descendants of deceased appellant No.1- Edukanti Kistamma; and deceased Lr.No. iv of deceased appellant no.2 are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Status of protected tenants under The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
2. Validity of surrender of tenancy rights.
3. Issuance and challenge of ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Act.
4. Restoration of possession of land to protected tenants.
5. Finality and challenge of orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and Appellate Authority.
6. Interpretation and application of beneficial legislation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Status of Protected Tenants:
The appellants claimed to be protected tenants and sought ownership certificates to become full owners of the suit land. The tenancy registers of 1951 and 1958 supported their claims. The RDO and Appellate Authority confirmed their status as protected tenants. The High Court's decision to set aside these findings was challenged on the grounds that the respondents did not contest the grant of protected tenant status initially, making their later challenges inconsequential.

2. Validity of Surrender of Tenancy Rights:
The respondents argued that the appellants' predecessor-in-interest had surrendered tenancy rights in 1958. However, the RDO found the alleged surrender invalid due to non-compliance with Section 19 of the Act 1950. The Appellate Authority upheld this finding, noting that the statutory requirements for a valid surrender were not met.

3. Issuance and Challenge of Ownership Certificates:
The ownership certificates under Section 38-E were issued to the appellants, confirming their status as full owners. The respondents challenged these certificates without contesting the initial grant of protected tenant status. The Supreme Court emphasized that challenging the consequential order (issuance of certificates) without challenging the basic order (grant of protected tenant status) is not permissible.

4. Restoration of Possession:
The appellants sought restoration of possession based on the ownership certificates. The RDO and Appellate Authority supported their claims. The High Court's intervention in this matter was deemed inappropriate, as the appellants' right to restoration had already been upheld by previous judgments, which attained finality.

5. Finality and Challenge of Orders:
The orders of the RDO and Appellate Authority, which confirmed the appellants' status as protected tenants and the issuance of ownership certificates, were not challenged by the respondents in a timely manner. The Supreme Court noted that these orders attained finality, and the High Court should not have reopened these issues.

6. Interpretation and Application of Beneficial Legislation:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Act 1950 is a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting tenants' rights. It requires liberal interpretation to advance social and economic justice. The Court criticized the High Court for not adhering to this principle and for reopening settled issues, thereby frustrating the legislative intent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the RDO and Appellate Authority's findings. The Court reinforced the finality of the orders confirming the appellants' status as protected tenants and their entitlement to ownership certificates and restoration of possession. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for surrender of tenancy rights and the need for liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation to protect tenants' rights.