T CHANDRASEKHAR RAO Vs. G VASRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 aggrieved by the order dated 3-8-1990 in C.M.A.No.4 of 1988 made by the joint Collector, Khammam.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of an agreement for sale dated 8-6-1965 entered into by the father of the petitioner with the respondent for the purchase of land to an extent of Ac. 1-20 guntas in S.No.739 situated in Bayyaram village of Khammam district, the father of the petitioner came into possession of the said land. The total sale consideration agreed to between the parties was Rs.800/-, out of which an amount of Rs.600/- was paid on the date of agreement and the balance amount of Rs.200/- was agreed to be paid after a month at the time of registration of the sale-deed. It is stated that originally, the father of the respondent was a tenant-in-occupation of the land in question and later on he was given patta certificate in respect of an extent of Ac.3-00 of land in the said S.No.739 under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short), which was notified on 1-11-1955. Subsequently, the land, which is the subject-matter of the agreement, fell to the share of the respondent in family partition. While so, the respondent seems to have filed an application before the Tahsildar, Sudimalla seeking eviction of the petitioner and restoration of the land to him alleging that the petitioner has trespassed into the land in the guise of the agreement for sale. The said application was dismissed by the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred C.M.A.No.2/84 before the Joint Collector, Khammam, who, by order dated 20-4-1985, remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bayyaram, with a direction to conduct an enquiry de novo. On remand, the Mandal Revenue Officer, by order dated 5-9-1985, upheld the validity of agreement for sale and consequently refused to evict the petitioner from the land in question. The respondent, therefore, filed C.M.A.No.4/88 before the Joint Collector, Khammam, who, in turn, by order dated 3-8-1990, set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 5-9-1985, and ordered restoration of possession of the land in question to the respondent by holding that possession of the petitioner is unauthorised. It is this order of the Joint Collector, Khammam dated 3-8-1990 which is impugned in this revision petition.

(3.) Sri. J.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Joint Collector has not properly construed the provisions contemplated under Section 48-A of the Act and passed the impugned order without appreciating the provisions of the Act. It is also contended that a protected tenant of any land in respect of which he has acquired the right of ownership under Section 38-E of the Act cannot alienate the said property within a period of eight years from the date of grant of patta. But, in the instant case, Sri Prasad argues, the patta in favour of the father of the petitioner (sic. respondent) was issued under Section 38-E on 20-8-1955 whereas the agreement between the father of the petitioner and the respondent was arrived at on 8-6-1965 i.e., after more than eight years, thereby the embargo of eight years contemplated under Section 48-A of the Act was over and that, therefore, the petition seeking to evict the petitioner under the provisions of the Act cannot be maintained. It is contended further that the lower appellate authority has failed to appreciate the aspect of time factor which is very crucial for the protected tenant to seek restoration of possession of the land under Section 48-A of the Act. Sri Prasad also contended that the petitioner filed a suit, O.S.No.46/68 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem for specific performance; that suit was decreed; the decree has become final and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to evict the petitioner from the land in question.