OTHURU RAMANIAH Vs. AVULA BUJJI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali, dated 12th May, 1960. The fourth respondent, Gurram Jali Lakshmamma, belonging to the village of Padmanabhuni Satram, in the Nellore district, holds 2.40 acres of land covered by patta No. 24 in Chowkacharla village. The predecessor-in-title of respondents 1 to 3 in this petition, one Avula Ramalinga Reddy, took the said land on lease from the fourth respondent's husband, Rajamannar Setty, some years ago. It is alleged by the respondents 3 to 4 that after Rajamannar Setty's death his widow, the fourth respondent, Gurram Jali Lakshmamma leased out the land to Avula Ramalinga Reddy on an increased maktha. In 1958, according to respondents 1 to 3 the writ petitioner obstructed the agricultural operations carried on by Avula Ramalinga Reddy on the ground that he had obtained a lease from Jali Lakshmamma, on the foot of which he sought to take forcible possession. At that stage, Avula Ramalinga Reddy filed a petition (A.T.P. No. 14 of 1958) under section 16 clause (1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act (Act XVIII of 1956) on the file of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kowur, for obtaining a declaration that he, being a tenant, was entitled to be in possession of the disputed land in Chowkacherla village and that the present writ petitioner should be precluded from interfering with his possession. That application was resisted by the present writ petitioner Otturu Ramaniah and Jali Lak shmamma. During the pendency of that application Avula Ramalinga Reddy died and his legal representatives, respondents 1 to 3 in this petition, were brought on record.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in that petition that the Court of the Tahsildar acting under the Andhra Tenancy Act has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition, as the relief claimed therein was outside the scope of section 16(1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act. That objection was overruled. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the present writ petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, in A.T.A. No. 51 of 1958. That appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 31st December, 1958 with a direction that the Deputy Tahsildar should hear and dispose of the main petition on the merits.

(3.) A large number of witnesses were examined on either side before the Deputy Tahsildar, as to whether Ramalinga Reddy was cultivating the land, and whether the tenancy pleaded by Otturu Ramaniah was true. On a review of the evidence, the Deputy Tahsildar came to the conclusion that it had not been established that Ramalinga Reddy was a cultivating tenant of the schedule lands and that, therefore, his legal representatives cannot have the right to continue the tenancy under section 12 of the Andhra Tenancy Act. The petition (A.T.P. No. 14 of 1958), was, therefore, dismissed. The respondents 1 to 3 in this petition thereupon filed an appeal (A.T.A. No. 51 of 1958) under section 16(2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act against the decision of the Deputy Tahsildar, dated 29th August, 1958. The Revenue Divisional Officer reviewed the evidence and came to a different conclusion on the facts. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and held that the legal representatives of Avula Ramalinga Reddy were entitled to be in possession of the disputed land till the end of Fasli 1369, in and by his order dated 31st December, 1958.