GOKAVARAPU PERUMALLASWAMY Vs. GOKAVARAPU MANIKYAMBA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent claiming to be the landlord of certain items of property filed application M.P. Nos. 1 to 6/1964, before the Tahsildar, Rezole under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act for eviction of certain persons stated to be tenants. All these applications were taken on file by the Tahsildar on 3.2.1964 and notices issued to the alleged tenants on that day. In M.P. No. 1 notice was attempted to be served on the respondent therein, but he is said to have refused to receive the notice on 12.2.1964. in M.P. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 notices were served on the respective respondents therein on 10.2.1964 and 5.2.64, 5.2.64, 10.2.1964 and 10.2.1964. In M.P. Nos. 3 and 4 the respondents were set exparte on 8.2.1964, P.W. 1 was examined and Ex. P. 1 marked in both cases and orders of eviction were passed on 10.2.1964. In M.P. Nos. 2, 5 and 6 the respondents were set exparte on 10.2.1964, P.W. 1 was examined and Ex. P. 1 marked in all cases and orders were pronounced on 11.2.1964. In M.P. Nos. 1/1964 the respondent was set exparte on 13.2.1964, P.W. 1 was examined and Ex.P. 1 marked and order of eviction was pronounced on 13.2.1964. When the various orders of eviction were sought to be executed the petitioner in this Writ petition resisted delivery of possession and claimed that the lands were always in his possession and that the lands were never in the possession of the 1st respondent or the alleged tenants. The Revenue Inspector, Kadali who was directed to effect delivery of the lands in pursuance of the orders in M.P. Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 submitted a report stating that notwithstanding the protest of the petitioner he effected delivery. Along with his report he also forwarded the 'objection-petition' received from the petitioner. The Revenue Inspector of Manapalli who was directed to effect delivery of the lands concerned in M.P. Nos. 1 and 3/1964 submitted a report the Tahsildar, Razole and requested instructions as to what he should do in view of the resistance of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner seems to have sought the assistance of the police and the Tahsildar to preserve his alleged possession of the lands. As his attempts proved futile he has filed this application for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the orders in M.P. Nos 1 to 6/1964 and all consequential proceedings illegal and to restore to the petitioner possession of all the lands.

(2.) The main ground of attack by Mr. Anantha Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings in M.P. Nos. 1 to 6/64 are farcial and stage-managed and that the 1st respondent and her husband, the 2nd respondent have procured the orders by getting the Tahsildar to collude with them. According to the petitioner this is a necessary inference from the manner in which M.P. Nos. 1 to 6/1964 have been disposed of in haste and in contravention of law. On the other hand, Mr. V. Parthasarathy, for the respondents 1 and 2 urged that on such inference is deducible from the facts averred in the petitioner's affidavit. He submits that the question as to who was in possession of the land before the Tahsildar passed his orders, the question whether the respondents to those petitions were the tenants of the 1st respondent herein and the question whether there was any 'indecent' haste as allowed by the petitioner are questions which can be decided only after the adduction of evidence and cannot be decided in proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution. He also pointed out that title deeds to all the lands were admittedly in the name of first respondent.

(3.) The inference that the Tahsildar was acting in collusion with the respondents 1 and 2 is sought to be drawn solely from the haste with which the proceedings were conducted. It is true that under Rule 3(4) of the Andhra Tenancy rules a respondent in an application for eviction is entitled to file a counter within a period of ten days from the date of service of notice upon him. It may well be that the Tahsildar thought that since the respondents did not appear and request him for time, he need not wait for the period of ten days to expire. That may be an error of judgment on his part, but merely on that account, in the absence for anything more, it may not be permissible to infer that the Tahsildar was acting in collusion with the petitioner and her husband. Mr. Anantha Babu submits that the petitioner was not a party to the petitions for eviction filed by the respondent and he was therefore, not bound by the orders passed therein. He contends that the petitioner could not be evicted from the lands in pursuance of the orders for eviction passed against the alleged tenants. When the petitioner objected to the delivery and presented petitions before the Tahsildar claiming that he was in possession, Mr. Anantha Babu submits, it was the duty of the Tahsildar to have considered whether his objections were bonafide or not and if he came to the conclusion that the objections were bonafide it was his duty to withdraw the delivery warrants. I would have given serious consideration to this contention but for the fact that the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of his title to the properties. In view of the fact that a suit has been filed, by the petitioner it is unnecessary for me to consider this contention. It is also unnecessary to consider the contention. It is also unnecessary to consider the contention of Mr. Parthasarathy, that his client has undoubted title to the properties.