MARRIVADA SEETHARAMA REDDY Vs. RAMALINGESWARASWAMI VARI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner under Art, 226 of the Constitution is to quash the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru reversing the order of the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, granting remission of rent as prayed for by him.

(2.) The petitioner is the highest bidder of leasehold right of R. S.No.572. admeasuring Acs. 4-80 cents, situate at Rachur village. Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District and belonging to Sri Ramalingeswaraswamivari temple of the same village for a period of six years, commencing from April, 1967 on an yearly rental of 32 bags of paddy. In the year 1967, "Akkullu" paddy was raised on the land taken by him on lease. After transplantation, due to unprecedented floods, the land was inundated with water and the crop was completely damaged, which compelled the tenant to transplant with much inconvenience and expenditure for a second time. There was failure of crop due to submersion of the land. The Executive Officer of the respondent-temple and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Eluru were informed by the tenant about the failure of crop and were requested to grant remission of rent for that year as there was failure of crops due to floods. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for remission of rent. After due notice the standing paddy crop was cut by the Special Deputy Tahsildar who was appointed as the Commissioner to estimate the yield. The yield was found to be 51/2 bags and the Commissioner had sent his report to the Tahsildar to that effect. The petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and filed Ex.A 1 a memorandum to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Departments, Eluru dated 3-10-1968 and Ex. A. 2. a notice given by him to the respondent, in support of his claim, The Executive Officer of the respondent-temple was examined as R.W. 1. The Tabsildar. on a consideration of the evidence on record, found that there was total failure of crop in the field, in question, due to sub-mersion and granted remission of the entire rent. On appeal by the temple, the decision of the Tahsildar was reversed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that there was no evidence of the neighbouring ryots to show that their lands were also affected due to submersion. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) It was contended by Sri Venkatramireddi, for the petitioner, that the order of the appellate authority is illegal, erroneous and vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and his client is entitled for remission of rent.