JAMMULA ATCHAYYA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOVVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These application give rise to an important and interesting question of law of procedure as to whether the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Appellate authority under Section 16 (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act ) is competent to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance of the appellant or his counselor he has to dispose of the appeal on merits notwithstanding the absence of the parties or their counsel.

(2.) The brief facts leading to these writ petitions may be stated. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.4107/69 was the original owner of about 6 acres of land situate owner of about 6 acres of land situate at Peddovam Village, Kovvur taluk, West Godavari District and the petitioner herein in both the writ petitions was the cultivating tenant since the year 1967 for an annual rent of Rs. 1,600.00. It is case of the landlord that AC. 2-09 cents out of the 6 acres of land owned by Lalita Devi, were sold for Rs. 13900.00 to respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.No.4109/69 on 12-12-1968. As there was default in payment two petitions for eviction of the tenant-petitioner were filed before the Tahsildar under Section.13 of the Act. The tenant had set up a plea that he was entitled to the entire 6 acres of the land in question on the foot of an agreement of sale executed by Lalitadevi on 22/01/1968 for a sum of Rs. 22,000.00 and was put in possession of the lands as part performance of the agreement and he is not liable to be evicted It is also averred that a sum of about Rs. 6000.00 was in fact paid to the vendor.

(3.) Pending the application for eviction of the tenant before the Tahsildar, applications were filed for appointment of a receiver. on these applications the Tahsildar has ordered the tenant to furnish third party security for a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 and Rs. 800.00 respectively in both the cases. Aggrieved by that order, two appeals were preferred by the tenant before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 16 (2) of the Act. The appeals were dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 24-10-1969 for default. The applications to restore the appeals setting aside the export order passed on 24-10-1969 were rejected on 311-10-1969. Hence these writ petitions.