OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR ADILABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 16-3-1992 in Case No.D4/TA/l/92 of the Joint Collector, who dismissed the appeal filed by the pattedar while confirming the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer restoring possession of the land in an extent of Ac.5.11 in S.No.41 of Seethagondi village, Gudihathnoor Mandal, in favour of one Devu Bai, wife of the original protected tenant Thadaka Santhanna, this revision is filed by the pattedar.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The 2nd respondent herein (Thadaka Pothanna) claiming himself to be the son of the original protected tenant viz., Thadaka Santanna, filed a petition before the primary authority i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 32(1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking restoration of possession of the land in an extent of Ac.5.11 in Survey No.41 of Seethagondi village. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued notices to the pattedars, including the petitioner herein viz., Omprakash Agarwal, and conducted an enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the 2nd respondent herein i.e., Thadka Pothanna filed certain copies of Pahanies for the years 1954-55 to 1966-67 and also registered sale deed No.289/64 to show that they had purchased the land from Omprakash. The 2nd respondent contended that the original protected tenant Thadka Santanna has cultivated the land bearing S.No.41 in an extent of Ac.5.11 since 1954-55 to 1964-65 and from 1965-66 to 1966-67. On the other hand, the pattedar i.e., the petitioner herein contended that Thadaka Santanna is not the protected tenant of the land in question and moreover the said land was shown in the declaration filed by him and the same was also computed in his holding. It is also contended before the primary authority that the 2nd respondent herein - Thadaka Pothanna - is not the actual son of Thadaka Santanna as Santanna died issueless. It was further contended that the and in question is in his continuous possession since the year 1966-67. It was also contended that question of filing a petition for restoration of the land under the provisions of the Act will arise only when the protected tenant is evicted by the landlord forcibly from the land and that in this case since the protected tenant was out of possession for more than 20 years, the petition before the primary authority is barred by time. On a consideration of the arguments advanced on either side, the primary authority held that Thadaka Santanna is the original protected tenant of the land in question and that he had cultivated the land from 1954-55 to 1964-65 and later on Thadaka Pothanna cultivated the land from 1965-66 but from 1966-67 onwards the land has been in possession of the pattedar. He further held that Thadaka Pothanna is not the real son of Thadaka Santhanna since no documentary evidence was produced in support of the claim that Thadaka Pothanna is the son of Thadaka Santhanna. It was, however, held that since Thadaka Santanna was issueless and since the pattedar failed to prove that Thadaka Santhanna had surrendered his rights over the land in question, the wife of Thadaka Santhanna viz., Smt. Devu Bai only has got right to claim for restoration of possession of the land in question under Section 32(1) of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer accordingly ordered to restore possession of the land to the wife of the original protected tenant Smt. Devu Bai.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order dated 12-5-1988 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the pattedar went in appeal before the Joint Collector who, by order dated 7-6-1988, rejected the said appeal. The pattedar then challenged the said order in C.RP. No. 1743/1988 and this Court disposed of the said revision directing the Joint Collector to hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders by giving reasons for his conclusions. Pursuant to the said order of remand, the matter was heard afresh by the Joint Collector, who ultimately dismissed the appeal. Before the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent herein filed Dependent Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in support of his contention that he is the adopted son of Thadaka Santhanna. The Joint Collector though not gave any clear finding on the said Certificate as to its value under the law of evidence, but ultimately held that since the pattedar could not produce any evidence in support of his contention that Thadaka Pothanna is not the legal heir of the deceased Thadaka Santhanna, he dismissed the appeal. It is the said order of dismissal which is under challenge now in this revision.