LAXMAIAH Vs. BAJI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The petitioner is the land holder who filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar purporting to be under section 98 of the Act for eviction of the respondents who he claimed were trespassers. The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and contended that they could not be evicted under the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and that the remedy of the petitioners, if any, was to file a suit for eviction in a Civil Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer overruled the objections and ordered eviction. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar on oppeal, held that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of persons who are not tenants at the instance of a landholder and allowed the appeal. The landholder has now come up in revision to this Court. Mr. Balakrishnamurthi argues that the landholder was competent to maintain this application under section q8 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. He relied upon a decision of a Division Bench in Lingamiah v. Buna Talliah, 1965 1 An.W.R. 348.

(2.) In that case a tenant was forcibly dispossessed by a person who claimed to have purchased the property from the owner-pattadar. The tenant applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 32 of the Act to be put in possession of the property. Jaganmohan Reddy J., (as he then was) held that having regard to the special position of the tenant under the Act and the special right with which he is clothed under section 32 of the Act he was entitled to maintain a petition even against a trespasser. His Lordship distinguished the judgment of Chief Justice Subbarao in Sharfuddin v. Sama Yelluga, 1957 2 An.W.R. 478. on the ground that that was a dispute between the owner and a trespasser. The present case directly falls within the principle laid down by Subbarao, C.J., in Sharfuddin v. Sama Yelluga. Subbarao, C.J., observed thus: "The scheme disclosed by the provisions of the Act is to regulate the relationship between landholders and tenants and it does not affect the rights inter se between two persons setting up right of ownership to a particular land or a dispute between an owner and a trespasser or a person other than a tenant. But if landholder seeks to take possession of a land from a tenant or a protected tenant, he can only proceed in the manner prescribed under the Act, i.e., file an application before the Tahsildar. If any question arises whether a particular tenant is a protected tenant, the exclusive jurisdiction to decide that question is also conferred on the Tahsildar. In such cases, the civil Court has no jurisdiction.

(3.) The case of Lingamiah v. Burra Yelliah, does not apply to the facts of the present case as that was a case where the tenant's possession was disturbed. The tenant holds a privileged position under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and is given certain special rights and privileges. His possession is particularly protected and he can apply for eviction of anybody, be it the landlord or a person claiming under the landlord or a trespasser who disturbs his possession.