MADIGA RAJIGA Vs. MADIGA PEDA RAJIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the order of the Collector passed in appeal from the order of the Tenancy Commission declaring Madiga Peda Rajiga as protected tenant for S. Nos. 395, 407, 408 and 409. The case of the respondent Peda Rajiga was that he being the protected tenant, the tenancy certificate was granted to him, that the patwari handed over the said certificate to his brother, China Rajiga, with the direction that it may be delivered to him and that the petitioner instead of complying with it inserted certain words so as to appear that it was given to himself i.e., China Rajiga, which the respondent came to know when the crop was attached for recovering the takavi amount due from Abdul Mannan. The Tenancy Commission found his story true and the Collector agreed with the conclusion of the Tenancy Commission that the Tenancy Certificate was in fact given to Peda Rajiga and that China Rajiga is not a protected tenant. It is against this order that the petitioner has come in revision.

(2.) Sri Vemuganti Madhavarao on behalf of the petitioner raised several legal pleas. He urged that the Tenancy Commission was not competent to entertain the petition on the date of its presentation in view of notification No. 82 dated 17-12-1954 and further that the members of the commission were guilty of judicial misconduct in the inquiry made by them. He made a further grievance that the commission in its inquiry failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of rule 24 (a) (ii) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Rules. In my opinion the last plea is not without much substance. Rule 24-A (ii) reads thus:

(3.) It follows that in a dispute relating to a questioned entry in the filial record of tenancies all the persona interested in the land or the necessary parties to whom notices should issue before any finding is given. Land-holders are specifically mentioned as such persons. The provision is mandatory and is calculated to provide for just and complete adjudication of the dispute. In the instant case the name as entered in the records is Madiga Rajiga. The contestants are brothers bearing the same name, with this difference that one is called China Rajiga while the other is Peda Rajiga. In this dispute, certainly the land holder has a vital interest in as much as the decision on one side or other affects his relationship with his tenant actual or so declared. It cannot be said that landlord has no interest apart from the rental. In addition to that he has certainly got some other rights and in certain cases he has got a right to terminate tenancy and reclaim the land. His rights are certainly affected if the tenants proclaimed as protected tenant change from time to time. There is also possibility of some collusion against him to defeat his statutory interests which he can safeguard only if he is given notice of such proceedings. That is the reason why the rule lays down that he should be given notice. Being a mandatory provision it should be obeyed in full. As no notice has been given in this case, the proceedings became tainted and the finding therefore cannot be upheld. It is stated that apart from Chenna Reddy whose name as land-lord or pattadar appears in the certificate produced, there is one other person interested in the land Abdul Mannan by name, in relation to whose "Taquavi" the crops of the fields are alleged to have been attached. Having regard to the material on record both these persons ought to be given notice as both of them appear to be interested in the land in question. The case therefore will have to be remanded for enquiry according to law. I therefore allow this petition, set aside the orders of the Courts below, and remand the case to the Deputy Collector concerned who is now competent authority under rule 3 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Records Correction Rules of 1956 issued through notification No. 129-A-3-1047 (55-56) dated 4-3-1956 for fresh inquiry into the petition of the respondent after notice to all the interested persons and its disposal according to law.