S. Sudershanam vs Mandal Revenue Officer and Others

S.V. Maruthi, J.—This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District not to proceed with the petition filed by respondents 2 to 5 u/s 332 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act, 1950 (for short the ''Act''). The dispute relates to Ac. 7-30 guntas in Sy. No. 103 and Ac. 4.00 in Sy. No. 104 of Laxmakkapally village, Mulug Mandal. The petitioner claims to have purchased this land from one Shantilal under an agreement of sale coupled with delivery of possession on 22-10-1971. Since the said Shantilal did not execute a sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 10 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Siddipet. The suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 29 of 1984. The said suit was decreed on 29-12-1984. Pursuant to the decree passed on 29-12-1984 the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and in turn a sale deed was executed in favour of one Srinivasa Prasad on 21-11-1996. While so respondents 2 to 5 filed a petition u/s 32 of the Act requesting the Mandal Revenue Officer to put them in possession of the land on the ground that they are protected tenants. A notice was served by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the petitioner. Questioning the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner filed the present revision.

The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the averments in the petition filed u/s 32 of the Act that respondents 2 to 5 have been put in permissive possession, the petition u/s 32 of the Act cannot be sustained. If respondents 2 to 5 are in permissive possession the petition filed u/s 32 of the Act is not maintainable as there is no tenant and landlord relationship between the respondents and the petitioner. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Subrahmanyam v. Narasimhaiah 1963 (1) An.W.R. 135 The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Act has no application the petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Section 32 of the Act enables the tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of the Act to apply to the Tahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for such possession. Section 34 of the Act defines the protected tenant as a person who held the land as a tenant continuously for a period of not less than six years, being a period wholly included in the Fasli years 1342 to 1352 (both years inclusive) or, for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding the 1st day of January, 1948 or for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlier than the 1st day of the Fasli year 1353 and completed before the commencement of the Act and cultivating the same personally during such period.

It is true u/s 32 r/w. 34 of the Act the protected tenant is entitled to recover possession of the land from the landholder as held in the decision reported in the earlier paragraph. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the averments made by the respondents in the petition filed u/s 32 of the Act. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

"That about 20 years back the respondent made the petitioners to believe that he would establish a grape garden in the said lands and he would share the profits with the petitioners. Believing his version the petitioners have allowed him to rise grape garden, thus allowed him to remain in possession."

From the averments made by the petitioner it is clear that the petitioners are put in possession of the respondents by themselves. In other words, the petitioners are holding the land as agents of the respondents. Therefore I am of the view that Section 32 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore the C.R.P. has to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. No costs.

However, this order does not preclude the respondents from seeking the relief, if available, under law from an appropriate forum.