GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & Ors.

Mutt and also recorded in the report of the Inspector. Thus, it is noted that lessees were well aware of the nature of the land as agricultural land. Such order of the High Court has attained finality. The Mutt has based its arguments on the premise that the land in question is agricultural land. [Paras 51-56][406-B-D, F-G, H; 407-F-G]

2.2 A perusal of the written arguments shows that the lessees have submitted that the land is being used for non-agricultural purposes. The entire argument is based upon use of the land for non-agricultural purposes. The nature of land is distinct from the use of the land. Since the land is agricultural land, its use for non- agricultural purposes would not alter the nature of the land as an agricultural land. Section 82 of the 1987 Act mentions “any lease of agricultural land….”, therefore, the lease has to be of agricultural land irrespective of the use to which the lessee may put such agricultural land to. The language of the statute refers to nature of the land and not the use thereof. Therefore, even in terms of the written arguments raised by the lessee before the Tribunal, the use of land for non-agricultural purposes would be irrelevant for statutory cancellation of the lease of agricultural lands under Section 82 of the 1987 Act. The distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural land sought to be drawn from the reading of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Assessments Act, 1963 repealed by the A.P Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, is not tenable. The distinction between the categories of land leads to consequence of higher assessment in the case of non-agricultural land. The lessee has not led any evidence that they are paying levy as per the rates fixed under this statute as that of non- agricultural land. In respect of the 1987 Act, the Division Bench of the High Court in Siddhartha Academy held that use of land for non-agricultural purpose is immaterial for the purpose of statutory cancellation of lease deed, as provided under Section 82(1) of the said Act. The SLP (Civil) Nos. 25617-25619 of 2013 stood withdrawn on 35 27.2.2017. Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench had attained finality. [Paras 57, 58, 60, 61][408- G-H; 409-A-C; 410-B, F] A B C D E F G H GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. 381 Siddartha Academy of General and Technical Education v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments 2010 SCC Online AP 461 – referred to.

3.1 Whether the parties went to trial with the knowledge that the land in question was agricultural land in the proceedings between the parties before the Endowments Tribunal? The 1987 Act is a Code in itself providing for constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, appeal, revision and review. The strict rule of procedure contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of pleadings and evidence cannot be extended to the Tribunal constituted for specific purpose. Since the lessees were aware of the fact that the Mutt claims the land to be agricultural land and statutory cancellation of the lease was being averred for the reason that the leased land was agricultural, therefore, the lessees cannot complain of any violation of principles of natural justice or strict rules of pleading as is required under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the parties were aware of the controversy about the nature of the land. Thus, the lessee cannot be permitted to turn around to dispute the nature of land leased to them. [Paras 63, 66][411-B-D; 412-A] Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr. (2008) 17 SCC 491 : [2008] 14 SCR 621; Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 555 : [1987] 2 SCR 805; Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148 : [2012] 8 SCR 35; Biraji alias Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap & Ors. (2020) 10 SCC 729 – held inapplicable.