VENKANNA Vs. PICHIKUNTAL BUCHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings taken under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), The petitioners herein are the land-holders. The respondents are the protected tenants. The tenants filed an application under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 32 of the Act before the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar for possession of an extent of Ac 4.00 cents of land in S. No. 65 situated in the village of Pedda Darapalli, Mahaboobnagar District, alleging that they are the protected tenants for the land covered by S. No, 65 measuring Ac. 13-22 guntas and they were cultivating the land for about 4 to 5 years as protected tenants and were in possession of the same, that while so they were forcibly dispossessed of Ac, 4,00 of land out of the total extent of Act13-22 guntas and their possession of the same should be restored. The application was filed against three respondents (Land-holders) of whom the first respondent is the father and respondents 2 and 3 his sons. The two points which are now argued before me and raised by the respondents before the Tahsildar are that it is only respondents 2 and 3, namely, the sons are the pattadars for the land in question and the father, namely, the first respondent is not the pattadar and if the first respondent, not being the landholder dispossessed the petitioners from the land the petitioners cannot get any relief against him under Section 32 of the Act and it is not true to say that the petitioners were forcibly dispossessed from the land but it is only the petitioners who have surrendered the possession of that AC| 4.00 cents of land as a result of a compromise entered into between them. The Tahsildar dismissed the petition by holding that that the tenants were not forcibly evicted but it is the tenants who have surrendered possession of the land to the landholders and the first respondent is not the landholder and if he has dispossessed the tenants from the land the remedy of the tenants is otherwise than taking proceedings under Section 32 (1) of the Act Against the said order of the Tahsildar the tenants took the matter in appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

(2.) The Revenue Officer in a short order fouad that under Section 32 of the Act a protected tenant is entitled to get possession against anybody and also respondent No. 1 is the father and respondents 2 and 3 are his sons only and their contention that the land in question had fallen to the share of the respondents 2 and 3 is not supported by any registered partition deed though in the Phanl Pate rika for 1961 the names of the respondents 2 and 3 are shown as pattadars and the rights of the protected tenants to have possession of the land cannot be restricted if the entries in the revenue records are changed. By finding this point alone in favour of the tenants without considering the further case of the landholders that it is a case of surrender and not forcible dispossession of the tenants, the District Revenue Officer allowed the appeal. It is against this order of the District Revenue Officer the landholders have preferred this Civil revision Petition.

(3.) As regards the point whether the action taken under Section 32 of the Act is maintainable against the first petitioner, namely, the father even if he is considered to be a third party is covered by a Bench decision of this Court in Lingamiah Vs. Burra Yallaiah(l) wherein it was held that if a tenant in possession is forcibly dispossessed even by a third party (tresspasser) he has a right to apply under Section 32 of the Act for summary eviction of the trespasser and the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. Then what remains to be considered is the point whether there was a voluntary surrender of the land in question in favour of the land-holders by the tenants and therefore the tenants cannot maintain a petition under Section 32 of the Act to recover possession of the land on the ground that they were forcibly dispossessed by the land-holders From the order of the Tahsildar it appears that there was a surrender of the land as alleged by the land-holders. In the order of the Tahsildar he observed as follows :