PENUMARTHI SRI HARIRAMAMURTHY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEKKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer) Tekkali in T.A. No. 1 of 1958 passed in appeal against the order of the Tahsildar, Patapatnam, in T.P. No. 35 of 1957 directing the eviction of the second respondent, is sought to be removed on certiorari.

(2.) The petitioner applied under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956, for eviction of the second respondent on the ground that the latter failed to pay the rent due by him within the period contemplated by clause (a) of that section. The petition was opposed by the second respondent mainly on the ground that under section 4 (2) (c) of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, he was entitled to a patta for two-thirds of the land in dispute. The Tahsildar overruled this objection on the ground that the second respondent had not established that the lands constituted inam lands within the purview of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. He also decided that the Madras Estates Land Act was inapplicable to the instant case for the reason that the concerned village was found to be not an estate by civil Courts, As there was no dispute that the second respondent had not paid the rent due by him to the petitioner, the Tahsildar ordered his eviction.

(3.) Dissatisfied with this decision, the second respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appellate authority reversed the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that an appeal was pending in the High Court against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, in O.S. No. 149 of 1953 and there was a chance of the High Court disagreeing with the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, in which case the second respondent might get the benefit of occupancy rights by reason of the concerned village being declared an ' estate' within the meaning of that Act. He also opined that though it could not be said that the lands in dispute had been established to be inam lands within the meaning of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, since the petitioner urged that these lands did not come within the purview of that Act it was for him to prove that they were not inam lands governed by that Act and since he had not discharged that burden, the second respondent could not be evicted till the provisions of that Act were applied to that village and the High Court decided the question of applying the Rent Reduction Act to that village.