Y RAMASWAMY Vs. A VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd petitioner Yeluripaty Janaki Rama Lakshmi is the landlady and the first petitioner is the subsequent purchaser. Adina Veerabhadra Rao the first respondent laid an application under Section 15 (6) read with Sec. 16 of the A.P. (A.A) Tenancy Act, 1956, Act, XVIII of 1956 as amended in A.P. (A.A.) Tenancy Amendment Act, 1974 which came into force with effect from July 1, 1980. The contention of the first respondent is that he is the cultivating terant, that the sale of the land dated June 19, 1982 by the 2nd petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner is voidable and unenforceable as against him and sought for an injunction to restrain the petitioners from unlawfully interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands bearing Sy. Nos. 194 and 195/5 of an extent of Ac. 1-00 situated in Jagapalinagaram village and patta No. 499 of an extent of Ac. 2-00 situated in Kirlampudi village that were leased out to him in the year 1978 by the second petitioner-landlady and that he has been continuing in possession as a cultivating tenant eversince. The sale has been made without giving the 1st respondent notice of his right to purchase the demised lands as provided under Section 15 (1). Thereby the sale is not binding on him. Accordingly the above declaration is sought for. The Special Officer in A.T.C. No. 16 of 1982 by his order dated 16th October, 1984 dismissed the application. On appeal the District Judge, East Godavari in A.T.A. 113 of 1984 by his judgment dated 29th October 1985 declared that the sale is void and not binding on the cultivating tenant-1st respondent. Accordingly an injunction was issued restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the first respondent from the lands otherwise than by due process of law. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri M.S.K. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners has contendedthat the relief sought for should be only from the Civil Court and the Special Officer or the appellate authority are devoid of jurisdiction to grant the relief. The question, therefore, is whether the Special Officer can grant the relief. The appellate authority found as a fact that the first respondent is a cultivating tenant, that the 2nd petitioner is the landlady and that she sold the property to the first petitioner under a registered sale deed while the first respondent is continuing in possession as cultivating tenant. These are facts found by the appellate Tribunal and are not disputed before me.

(3.) Section 15(1) of the A.P. (A. A.) Tenancy Act provides thus: