SUDERSHANAM S Vs. M R O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District not to proceed with the petition filed by respondents 2 to 5 u/S 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'). The dispute relates to Ac. 7-30 guntas in Sy.No.103 and Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.104 of Laxmakkapally village, Mulug Mandal. The petitioner claims to have purchased this land from one Shantilal under an agreement of sale coupled with delivery of possession on 22-10-1971. Since the said Shantilal did not execute a sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, the petitioner filed O.S.No.10 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Siddipet. The suit was renumbered as O.S.No.29 of 1984. The said suit was decreed on 29-12-1984. Pursuant to the decree passed on 29-12-1984 the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and in turn a sale deed was executed in favour of one Srinivasa Prasad on 21-11-1996. While so respondents 2 to 5 filed a petition u/S. 32 of the Act requesting the Mandal Revenue Officer to put them in possession of the land on the ground that they are protected tenants. A notice was served by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the petitioner. Questioning the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner filed the present revision.

(2.) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the averments in the petition filed u/S. 32 of the Act that respondents 2 to 5 have been put in permissive possession, the petition under Section 32 of the Act cannot be sustained. If respondents 2 to5 are in permissive possession the petition filed u/S. 32 of the Act is not maintainable as there is no tenant and landlord relationship between the respondents and the petitioner. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Subrahmanyam vs. Namsimhaiah. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Act has no application the petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Section 32 of the Act enables the tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of the Act to apply to the Tahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for such possession. Section 34 of the Act defines the protected tenant as a person who held the land as a tenant continuously for a period of not less than six years, being a period wholly included in the Fasli years 1342 to 1352 (both years inclusive) or, for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding the 1st day of January, 1948 or for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlier than the 1st day of the Fasli year 1353 and completed before the commencement of the Act and cultivating the same personally during such period.