BHAVAJI MUTT SINGARAYAPALEM Vs. BOYINA NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions are filed by Sri Bhavaji Mutt, Singarayapalem represented by its Executive Officer Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders made in C.M. A.No. 115 of 1991, CM.A.No. 116 of 1991, CM.A.No. 117 of 1991, C.M.A.No. 118 of 1991 and C.M.A.No. 119 of 1991 dated 31st July, 1997 by the learned District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, where under the orders made on 31st October, 1991 in A.T.C.No. 37 of 1987, A.T.C.No. 38 of 1987, A.T.C.No. 39 of 19987, A.T.C.No. 40 of 1987 and A.T.C. No. 41 of 1987 by the Special Officer-cum- Principal District Munsif, Gudivada had been reversed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-mutt is that the Mutt is the owner of the total extent of Ac. 38.80 cents in R.S.No. 70 corresponding to old survey number of Bethavolu village and the said land was originally a grant to Sevadas Bhavaji for Sadavarthi and there after the land was devolved upon Krishnadas, Jayramdas, Gangadas, Bharidas and others and the respondents were the tenants and their successors and they have been cultivating these lands as tenants and hence they have to pay the agreed rent due to the petitioner-mutt. The petitioner-mutt filed suits for recovery of possession and ultimately they were decided by the High Court that the said grant is not a grant to the mutt. But it is an individual grant and the respondents have been enjoying the said property without paying any rent either to the individual or to the institution and in the meanwhile the Matadipathi of the mutt i.e., the original grantee from whom the respondents had taken the lease passed away. It is also stated that the said property had merged with the other properties of the mutt and thus the petitioner mutt became the owner of the aforesaid land and in view of the death of the Matadhipathi subsequent to that the petitioner mutt issued notice demanding payment of arrears of rent from the respondents/tenants or their legal heirs. The respondents no doubt had denied the stand taken by the petitioner mutt. The learned Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif after recording the oral evidence and marking the documents, allowed the A.T.Cs. filed by the petitioner mutt and aggrieved by the same the respondents filed C.M.A. 115 of 1991, C.M. A. 116 of 1991, C.M.A.No. 117 of 1991, C.M.A.No. 118 of 1991 and C.M.A.No. 119 of 1991 where in the Appellate authority the learned District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, had reversed the said Judgment of the Special Officer-cum- Principal District Munsif and aggrieved by the same the present C.R.Ps. are preferred by the Petitioner Mutt.

(3.) Elaborate submissions had been made by both Sri P.R. Prasad, representing the petitioner mutt and also Sri G. Dharmarao, the counsel representing the respondents. In fact, both the counsel had pointed out several aspects regarding the prior litigation, the effect thereof and also pointed out the relevant provisions under Act 17 of 1966 and also Act 30 of 1987. Reliance was also placed on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Kami Reddi. In all fairness the counsel for the petitioner-mutt had submitted that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Kami Reddi, the remedy under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 is no longer available to the petitioner-mutt and hence, liberty may be given to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate competent authority under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi (2001 (6) Supreme page 481 at paras 14 and 15, it was held by the Apex Court.