Vale Amruthamma, Wo Late v. Yadaiah, Aged about

Order

Since the parties ald the lis involved in both the revision petilions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. CRP.Nos.836 and 887 of 2O2O are preferred praying this Court to set aside the common order dated 13. 1 1 .2019 passed in Appeal Nos.Fl/O2l2015 and Fl/IlO97 l2Ol8 by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, directing the concerned Tahsildar to restore the possession of land to an extent of their share in Sy.No.217 to arrd extent of Ac.18.0O gts, Sy.No.218 to an extent of Ac. 10.38 gts, Sy.No.219 to an extent of Ac.11.34 gts, Sy.No.257 to an extent of Ac.14.39 gts, Sy.No. 144 to an extent of Ac.2.OO gts, situated at Choudoor Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, on the ground of being legal heirs of Late V. Yadhaih. 2 CRP.Nos.88' & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J o

3. The brief facts of the case are that Radhalrai was the original owner of various lands, including Sy.Nor;.217, 218, 219, 257, and 144, totaling 57.31 acres. Vale Bi.sappa was the permanent tenant over the land, :nd Shaik Mohinuddin was the agent collecting kaul or behalf of Radhabai. After the death of Vale Basappa, his two sons, Vale Yadaiah and Vale Sangaiah, were issued ownership certificates under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act in 1977 (for short 'the Act') as evidenced by File No.A1O/3129 /1977. However, it was allegeci that the tenants were forcibly evicted from the land and were compelled to leave for Maharashtra to earr a living. Subsequently, Vale Sangaiah hled an applicatior before the Tahsildar under Section 32 of Act for restora.ion of the property, claiming that he was the sole heir afte - the death of Vale Yadaiah. The Tahsildar passed orders rn the year 20 10, observing that the PT rights were still ex isting, and the ownership certificates were issued to Vale Yrrdaiah and Vale Sangaiah. Despite this, it was submitte.l that the petitioners did not approach the authorit5r for rer.;toration of possession, and instead, the land was sold ro over 2O I I 3 CRP.Nos.EET & &36 OF 2020 J}llJ"J people through registered documents from the year 1991 onwards. The revenue records were also updated to reflect the said transactions. The matter was remanded for fresh inquiry, and appeals were filed by Vale Sangaiah and the legal representatives of Vale Yadaiah. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed uide common order dated

13.11.2019 on the ground that the pelitioners had become owners of the land, making restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Act becomes inapplicable.

4. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel for respondents, in both the matters.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the common order under revision passed by the Joint Collector is replete with errors and infirmities, and that the same is against the facts of the case, as it fails to take into account the evidence on record. He contended that the Court of Joint Collector erred in not considering the provisions of Sections 38-E and 32(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950 (for short ,\ 4 CRP.Nos.88t & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J o Rules 1950'), and averred that the said pror isions are crucial in determining the rights of the petitit,ners, who claim to be the heirs of Late V. Yadhaih. He asr;erted that the petitioners are entitled to restoration of posr;ession, as they have been dispossessed without following drte process, and by ignoring the provisions of Section 38-l)(2), which empowers the Tahsildar to restore possessi )n to the protected tenant after issuing a certificate. Ht lamented that the bar of jurisdiction under the Act, which prohibits civil Courts from settling or deciding questions under the Act was not considered. He divulged that thr: iands in question are protected tenancy lands, which cannot Lre alienated to third parties without offering th:m to the protected tenants.

6. Therefore, while advocating that there is no limitation period for seeking restoration of possession uncer the Act, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petiti< ns, setting aside the impugned common order dated 13.11 .2019 and to direct restoration possession of the larLd to the peLitioners on the ground of them being the lep,;al heirs of Late V. Yadhaih. In support of the said contr ntions, he t-.- 5 CRP-Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as follows: a In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Others Vs. Mandala Ramulamma and Othersl: "Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificate of ownership under Section 38-E, t})e protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land. Further, Explanation provided under Section 38-E(l) provides that if a protected tenant has been dispossessed otherwise than in the manner ald by the order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, then notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, or ttte order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal strall be deemed to be holding the land on the date of notifrcation. The Tahsildar is under an obligation to either suo motu or in. furtherance of aII application by the protected tenant, to hold a summar5r enquiry and direct taking of land in possession of the landholder or any other 1 2021 scc online sc 851 5 CRP.Nos.88i & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J () person claiming through or under him. The possession from a protected tenant can be taken .only if the surrender of tenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The landowner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 of the Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within one year' Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancy rights by protected tenant and even if the lenarlcy is terminated, the lardholder is personally liable to restore possession to the tenant. if he fails to cultivate the lald within one year of termination of tenancy. The order of the learned Single Bench in Jupudi Bhushanam [Jupudi Bhtshanqm v. Catlector, Khammqm, 1996 SCC Online AP 9411 is to the effect that once certihcate under Section 38-E is granted, and subsequently he has been dispossessed, he has the right to seek remedy from the civil court. The High Court has failed to notice that the Explanation in sub-section' (1) of Section 7 CRP.Nos.a87 & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J 38-E of the Tenancy Act specifically provides tlnt if a protected tenant, on account of his being dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsitdar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date of the notification issued under sub section (1), then, the Tahsildar shalL notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suo motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry, and direct that such lald in possession of the landholder or any person claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from such possession thereof and shall be restored to the protected tenant." B.Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala Narayan Reddy Othersz: "It is well settled that the interest of a protected tenant continues to be operative and subsisting so long as "protected tenancy" is not validly terminated Even if such protected tenant has lost possession ' 2016 15 scc toz 8 CRP.Nos.88: & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J .i-\ of the land in question, that by itself does not terminate the "protected tenancy". Thcr obsewations of the Full Bench of thc Andhra Pradesh High Court in S@da case lsqdav. Tehsildar, AIR 1988 AP 77 . (1947) 2 An LT 749 : 1987 SCC OnLine AP 187) which were quoted with approval b1' this Court rn Bod"dam Narsimhav. Hasan Ali Khan fBoddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan, (2007l, i1 SCC 41Ol are quitc eloquent: (Sada case lSadav. Tehsildar, AIR 1988 AP 77 : (19871 2 An LT 749 1987 SCC Online AP 1871 , SCC Onlinc AP para 44) "44. ln otr view, this contention is not correct. [f a protected tenant is already in physicat possession on the date o[ notification there is no problem at all. lf proceedings under Sections 19, 32 or 44 are pending, the date of vesting gets itself postponed. [f the "protected tenancy' stood validly terminated by the date of notification under Sections 19,32 or 44, in that case, no certihcate at all can bc issued. But, as long as a I I a 9 CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J person confinued to be a "protected tenart" either under Sections 34, 37 or 37-A, as per the Act and has not lost that status, whether he is in actual possession or not on the date of notihcation, and is also to be "deemed" to be in possession under the first part of the Explanation subject to Section 32(7) and the proviso to Section 38-E(1), the ownership stands transferred straightaway to such protected tenant by the very force of Section 38 E(1). Further, Section 38-E(2) read with the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 contemplates a ful1- fledged inquiry aJter notice to the landholders or after hearing objections of any other interested person (vide Rules 4 and 5). Once a certificate is issued, the s.une is, under Section 38 E(2), "conclusive evidence' of the ownership of the protected tenant, and canrlot be defeated by the result of any inquiry under second pa-rt of the Explanation to Section 38-E. Another reason for this view is that I I 10 CRP.NoS.8S; & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J o the inquiry under Section 38 E(2) read with the 1973 Rules referred to above, is to be done by the Tribunal (the Revenue Divisional Officer) and obviously - decision to grant the ownership certihcate will not and cannot be jeopardised by the result of any inquiry by a subordinate official tike the Tahsildar, who deals with the granting of possession to a "protected tenant"." (emphasis supplied) lt is not the case of the appellants that the protected tenancy of Teegala Shivaiah was terminated in a manner known to law. In the absence of such valid termination of 'protected tenancy", the interest of such protected tenant continued to be operative and subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and representatives who could then claim restoration of possession As in Sada case [Sada v. Tehsildor, AIR 1988 AP 77 : (1987) 2 An L"l 749 : 1987 SCC Onl-ine AP 1871 even if the protected tenant had lost possession, without there being valid 11 CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 SKS,J termination of his status as a protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act. In the aforesaid premises, the view taken by the High Court in allowing civil revision petitions in favour of the respondents herein was perfectly right and justified." Edukanti Kistamma Vs. S.Venkatreddya '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 certihcate, 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 to restoration of the possession of the said land through the Tahsildar. The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed itlegally by the landlord or anybody else. [f so dispossessed, he has a right to restoration of the possession- He can be dispossessed only by taking recourse to the procedure ' zoto 1 scc zs6 1'1 12 CRP.Nos 88: & 436 OF 2O2O i) SKS,J prescribed under Section 32 of the 1950 Act. The 1950 Act being the beneficial legislation requires interpretation to advalce social and economic justice and enlorce 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 a 6tatute, thc Act is to be read in its entirety. The purport and object of the Act must bc given its full effect by applying the principtes 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 \ (-'\ \ 13 CRP.Nos.aaT & a36 OF 2O2O SKS,J effective and operative and to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. The court has the duty to construe the statute to promote the object of the statute arrd serve the purpose for whlch it has been enacted and should not efface its very purpose. (Vide S.P Jainv. Krishna Motnn Guptal(1987) I SCC 19i : AIR 1987 SC 2221 , RBIv. peerless General Finance and Inuestment Co. Ltd. ll1987l 1