VANGALA NARSIAH Vs. GOOVURI NARAYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Narsiah, claiming that he purchased 11 acres of land out of S. No. 200 of Gollapalli for a sum of Rs. 1000/- from Ramakishtiah under an agreement of sale dated 15-12-1960 and was given possession of it, filed an application under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Ramakishtiah the alienor, appeared before the Tahsildar and admitted the alienation, receipt of consideration and giving of possession. The application, however, was opposed by one Gavoori Narayana who claimed that he purchased this very land on 8-4-1959 from Ramakishtiah for a consideration of Rs. 1500/- and was given possession. He claimed that he was continuing in possession ever since. He also produced the agreement of sale dated 8-4-1959 executed in his favour by Ramakishtaiah and revenue receipts issued by the Patwari. The Tahsildar held that the petitioner was entitled to a certificate under Section 50-B of Act as the agreement of sale in his favour showed that Ramakishtiah received consideration and put him in possession of the land. The claim of Govoori Narayana was virtually ignored. Thereupon Narayana preferred an appeal to the Additional Collector, Karimnagar who remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to consider the question whether Narasiah or Narayana was in possession. Narasiah has preferred this Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The principal argument of Mr. Jeevan Reddy, learned counsel is that the Tahsildar acting under Section 50-B of the Act is incompetent to adjudicate upon rival claims to land. According the him a certificate under section 50-B should have been straight away granted to the petitioner when the alienor admitted having received consideration and having given possession. Narayana should have been left to pursue his remedy, if any, in a Civil court. I am unable to agree with this contention.

(3.) Section 50-B provides, that notwithstanding the provisions of sections 47 and 48, where an alienation or transfer of agricultural land took place on or after 10-6-1950 but before 21-2-1961 and possession of such land was given to the alienee before 21-2-1961 and the consideration is proved to have been paid or deposited within the prescribed time with the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar, after making the prescribed enquiry, shall issue a certificate declaring the alienation or transfer as valid. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under them. It will be seen that in order to obtain a certificate from the Tahsildar, the transferee must establish (1) that there was a transfer in his favour (2) that he was given possession of the land and (3) he had paid or deposited the consideration. The enquiry contemplated by section 50-B is obviously into these matters. One can easily visualise situations where a transferor after transferring property, receiving consideration once more. If the later purchaser applies for a certificate under section 50-B of the Act the former purchaser is surely entitled to object to the grant of such a certificate. He may allege that he is in possession and that the later purchaser was never given possession of the land. He may also allege that the transfer in favour of the second purchaser was a bogus transaction. He may further allege that the second purchaser never paid any consideration to the transferor. I see no justification for holding that the Tahsildar is not competent to enquire into any of these matter if a dispute is raised before him. The rules made under section 50-B read with section 97 of the Act provide for an individual notice to the alienor, of an application under section 50-B as also a public notice to all other persons believed to be interested in the land specifying the date of enquiry. The rules also provide for the adduction of oral and documentary evidence by the parties. There will be no purpose to be served in issuing notices to all other interested persons to appear if rival claims are not going to be considered by the Tahsildar. I have no doubt that the Tahsildar is competent and indeed is bound, to enquire into rival claims if necessary. There are, therefore, no merits in this Civil Revision Petition, which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50/-.