BASIREDDY NARSI REDDY Vs. RAGHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this case is whether a person who happened to be a protected tenant can nevertheless exercise the right to purchase agricultural land from the land -holder not in exercise of his rights as a protected tenant, but as an independent person, and then obtain a certificate under Section 50 -B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The undisputed facts are - -the petitioner herein who is the protected tenant purchased the lands in S. Nos. 205, 206, 211, 212, and 214 to 218 situated within the limits of Kamsampally village, Shadnagar taluk, Mahaboobnagar District, from the landholder -respondent herein on 6 -4 -1957. On payment of due consideration the sale deed is said to have been executed. Subsequently an application was made before the Tahsildar for the issue of a certificate of validation under Section 50 -B of the Act. To that petition, objections were filed by the respondent herein stating that the application made by the petitioner is not maintainable. However, the Tahsildar turned down the objection and held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the said application. Thereafter, for completion of the enquiry the case was posted to a particular date. Aggrieved by the said order, the landholder -respondent herein preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector who held that the procedure adopted by the Tahsildar was erroneous, as the matter falls within the scope of Section 38 -E of the Act and not under Section 50 -B. It was further observed that inasmuch as by the date of the order Section 38 -E came into force on 1 -1 -1973, the matter will have to be referred to the R.D.O. concerned for due adjudication. This order is challenged in this Revision Petition.

(2.) THE contention of Sri Vasudeva Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is true that the petitioner is a protected tenant, nevertheless he had not exercised the right of purchasing the land from the landholder as a protected tenant but he purchased it as an independent person and there is no statutory bar against such purchases. In fact, the landholder agreed for the sale of the said land and after receiving full consideration executed the sale deed. If it were to be otherwise, there are certain inhibitions under Section 38 whereunder the protected tenant, if he intends to purchase as such, will have to do so under certain restraints.

(3.) I apprehend the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent has no force. No provision nor any authority has been brought to my notice which prevents a protected tenant from exercising his right as an independent person and not as a protected tenant, to purchase land from the landholder. Merely because the petitioner herein happened to be a protected tenant he cannot stand deprived of the right to purchase land de -hors the provisions enacted in Section 38, and to obtain a sale certificate under Section 50 -B placing himself in the position of a person who is not otherwise a protected tenant. If it were to be otherwise, surely that will be an embargo which effects not only ordinary rights, but also fundamental rights. Therefore, such provision could not have been even postulated by the Act. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that if a person happened to be a protected tenant and if he does not choose to exercise his rights under Section 38 of the Act, but likes to exercise his right as an independent person and then purchases the land from the landholder, then there is nothing in the statutory provisions which precludes him from doing so. He can surely attract the provisions enacted in Section 50 -B of the Act and obtain a certificate from the authority concerned. He might even be exercising this right to some extent detrimental to himself in he sense that the consideration which is postulated under Section 38 for the sale of the land is enormously less than what would otherwise normally be paid under bilateral agreements. There are certain inhibitions in the exercise of the rights under Section 38, viz., the extent of land which the protected tenant is entitled to purchase is limited, so also a minimum extent of land will have to be left to the landholder. Therefore, in disregard of all these beneficial or disadvantageous provisions if the so called protected tenant would like to exercise his right to purchase independent of his status as a protected tenant, then there is nothing which comes in the way of such a right being exercised by such a person.