9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee For the Appellant : Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv., Mr. CSN. Mohan Rao,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Hinminder Lal,Adv., Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv., Mr. K.N. Rai,Adv. J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 9.10.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 4289 of 2001 and CC No. 829 of 2002 by which the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal and the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o commented upon the decree of the Civil Court in favour of the respondents and against Smt. Ayesha Begum, the original tenure holder, as the decree was passed ex-parte and the present appellants or their predecessor-in-interest were not impleaded as defendants in the suit. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred the appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad mainly on the ground that they had been in possession of the suit lands for the last 50 years i.e. since 1931 and that they had acquired title over the said land. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents on the ground that they could not produce any evidence of acquiring the possessory rights over the said land or having obtained the possession of the land lawfully. The tenants were entitled for possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Appellate Authority also rejected the prayer of the respondents that the decree of the Civil Court in OS No. 5 of 1963 between father of the respondents and original tenure holder Smt. Ayesha Begum be given effect to, on the ground that none of the protected tenants had been impleaded as defendant in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Appellate Authority had acted illegally and passed the orders without following the procedure prescribed under the Act 1950. Hence, this Appeal. 11. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants/predecessor-in- interest of the appellants had been granted the status of protected tenants. In pursuance thereof, the certificates under Section 38-E had been issued. The respondents merely challenged the issue of certificate without challenging the grant of status of protected tenants. In absence of a challenge of the basic order, challenge to the consequential order remains inconsequential. Issue of certificate in pursuance of confirmation of the status cannot be equated to the grant of status, as the process of issuance is merely a ministerial act. The appellant nos. 1 and 3 had been declared protected tenants by RDO and the Appellate Authority. The remand order passed by the Appellate Authority to RDO was only to examine as to whether the alleged affidavit of surrender was in conformity with the statutory provisions and was limited only in respect of predecessor-in-interest of appellant no. 2. The order of the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. So far as the present appeal is concerned, it may be necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions of the Act 1950. Section 2(r) Protected - means a person who is deemed to be a protected tenant under the provisions of this Act. Section 2(w) - Tribunal means - (i) the Agricultural Lands Tribunal constituted under sub- Sections (1) of Section 87 for the area concerned; (ii) where no such Tribunal has been constituted, the Deputy Collector or other officer authorized under sub-section(4) of the said section. Section 19. - Termination of Tenancy: (1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or order of a Court of law, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), no tenancy of land shall be terminated before the expiration of the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leased otherwise than (a)by the tenant by surrender of his rights to the landholder at least a month before the commencement of the year: Provided that such surrender is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal after holding such enquiry as may be prescribed, to every such protected tenant and notice of such issue shall simultaneously be issued to the landholder. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of the certificate as against the landholder and all other persons having any interest therein: Provided that where the land, the ownership of which has been transferred to the protected tenant under sub-section (1), is in the occupation of a person other than the protected tenant or holder of the certificate issued under this sub-section, it shall be lawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said land to the protected tenant or holder of the certificate, after giving notice of eviction to the occupant thereof, in the prescribed manner. x x x x x x x (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or Section 19, the Collector may, suo motu at any time, hold an enquiry with a view to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of the right made by the protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, for the purpose of effecting the transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification under Section 38-E. ........ (ii) The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed, illegally by the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, the Tahsildar either suo motu or on application must hold a summary inquiry, and direct that the land be restored to the protected tenant. That is the mandate of Section 38-E and the Explanation thereof. (iii) The landlord by himself cannot dispossess the protected tenant even if the tenancy is terminated in accordance with the law. The landholder will have to take recourse to Sec.32. He must approach the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit. (iv) Section 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. The alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal effect. 17. In N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein, that the ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their land- holders in such area under the Act, subject to the conditions laid down under section 38(7) of the Act would stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them as such and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands. The certificate issued under section 38-E(2) shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of the certificate, as against the landholder and all other persons having any interest therein. In case the protected tenant is not in possession of the land, he has a right of restoration of the possession of the said land through the Tahsildar. The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. If so, dispossessed, he has a right to restoration of the possession. He can be dispossessed only by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed under section 32 of the Act, 1950. There is a complete embargo on the right of the landholder to alienate the tenanted land to third party without giving an option t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the grant thereof, as both are separate things and issuance will be consequential to the grant of the permit. In fact, it is the grant and not issuance of the permit, which requires to be challenged. 22. The Act 1950, being the beneficial legislation requires interpretation to advance social and economic justice and enforce the constitutional directives and not to deprive a person of his right to property. The statutory provisions should not be construed in favour of such deprivation. Interpretation of a beneficial legislation with a narrow pedantic approach is not justified. In case, there is any doubt, the court should interpret a beneficial legislation in favour of the beneficiaries and not otherwise as it would be against the legislative intent. For the purpose of interpretation of statute, the Act is to be read in its entirety. The purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying the principles of purposive construction. The Court must be strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute's utility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as to make it effective and operative and to further the ends of justice and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sha Begum in the year1958 and the respondents were in possession of the land by virtue of the decree of the Civil Court dated 24.4.1963 in favour of their father, as Smt. Ayesha Begum, original land holder did not execute the sale deed in pursuance to the agreement to sell. 26. The judgment and order of the Civil Court dated 24.4.1963 in O.S. No.5/1963 was for declaration and assertion of the name in the Record of Rights by the father of the respondents. In the trial Court, the pleadings were only to the effect that the father of the respondents/plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands since June, 1950 and the defendant was the Pattedar who had transferred all her rights of interest in the suit lands. The said defendant had agreed that she would submit application for mutation of Khata but, she did not submit any application in the Revenue department. The judgment further reveals that the defendant did not appear in spite of notice and the suit was determined ex-parte. After making reference to the issues framed in the suit, the entire judgment and order runs as under: The plaintiff in support of his case examined two witnesses Erareddy and one Jangaiah. Erareddy (PW-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the respondents by filing the writ petition no. 5381 of 2000. The High Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2000 holding that the claim of the respondents, that they had purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration in the year 1955 was not acceptable and the certificate issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the said appellant nos. 1 3 under Section 38-E(2) had attained finality. Predecessor- in-interest of the appellant no. 2 was not the party in the said writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition observing as under: It is not the case of the petitioner that the 4th and 5th respondents also filed affidavits before the second respondent earlier. The third respondent in his proceedings dated 22.9.1981 remanded the matter to the second respondent only to the extent of enquiring into the affidavits filed by some of the Protected Tenant but not of the 4th and 5th respondents herein as they have not filed any affidavits earlier. Once that order has become final, granting of certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in their favour has also become final. Hence, they are entitled to file application under Section 32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The Appellate Authority observed as under : The signature of Parmaiah on the affidavit is not disputed. However, the due procedure for surrender has not been followed. Since Sri Parmaiah and his brother Yadaiah are disputing the surrender of their P.T. Rights, they may approach the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal for taking possession of the land as per the procedure laid down in the Act/Rules. (emphasis added) 33. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal against the said judgment and order of the RDO vide judgment and order dated 3.3.2001 affirming the findings of fact recorded by RDO that alleged certificate was not in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act 1950 and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to dispose of appellants' application seeking restoration. 34. In view of the above factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that it was not permissible for the High Court to reopen the issue either of grant or issuance of tenancy certificate under Section 38-E (2) or deal with the issue of restoration of possession so far as the appellant nos. 1 3 are concerned. At the most, the High Court could proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 32 of the Act and, therefore, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. In that view of the matter, entertaining the applications filed by the 4th and 5th respondents for recovery and restoration of possession by the first respondent cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. 37. In view of the above, 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 under Section 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. 38. 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 responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
