AKULA PATTAIAH Vs. HARKALA MALLAIAH RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent filed a petition before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR), Bhongir for issuance of certificate under Section 38-E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') in respect of certain lands, alleging that he purchased the said lands from the Pattadar and so he is entitled to the certificate sought. Father of revision petitioners 1 to 3 opposed the application contending that he in fact; is the protected tenant in respect of the said lands. The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR) Bhongir, allowed the petition and granted certificate in favour of 1st respondent-Mallaiah. Questioning the said order, the father of the revision petitioners 1 to 3 preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector, who dismissed the same vide order dated 14.05.1985. Aggrieved thereby, a revision was preferred to this Court in CRP No.2201 of 1986 and the same was allowed on 27-07-1989 with a direction to the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR), Bhongir, to dispose of the case afresh according to law. Thereafter, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR), Bhongir, after recording evidence, passed an order issuing certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of 1st respondent. Appeal preferred by the revision petitioners to the Joint Collector was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this [revision. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that even assuming that all the contentions raised by lsl respondent arc correct, both the Tribunals below were in error in allowing the application of 1st respondent, because 1st respondent admittedly is not a protected tenant within the meaning of the Act and since Section 38-E of the Act contemplates issuance of a certificate only to protected tenant but mot to anybody else. He strongly relied on K.Venkateswara Rao Vs. J.FuIlaiah, 1979A.P.H.N. 221. where it is held that ownership certificate can be granted only to protected tenants and so it is open to take an objection that person, who wants the ownership certificate is not a protected tenant, and contended that since 1st respondent admittedly, is not a protected tenant within the meaning of the Act, but only claims to be a purchaser from the pattedar, the order granting certificate under Section 38-E of the Act to 1st respondent is liable to be set aside.

(2.) There is no representalion on behalf of 1st respondent. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act can rbe granted only to protected tenants but not others. 'Protected tenant' is defined in Section 2 of the Act as "a person, who is deemed to be a protected tenant under the provisions of the Act"

(3.) Section 34 of the Act which lays down the persons that can he treated as protected tenants does not lay down that a purchaser from the owner of the land, would be treated as a protected tenant. Tenant' is defined in section 2(v) of'the Act as ''Asami Shikmi who holds land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Act. Persons who are deemed to be tenants .defined in Section 5 of the Act, does not who stated that a purchaser from the pattedar would be a 'tenant' within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, a purchaser of land from a land holder cannot be treated either as a tenant or a protected tenant, for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act.