BAKARAM JANGAIAH Vs. GUNDE LAXMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of the Joint Collector. Ranga Reddy District in File No.B4/l 1802/88, dated 4.4.1989, copy of which was served on the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners on 15.4.1989, affirming the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram in File No.A1/8477/ 71 and A1/M1/83, dated 2.1.1987 directing eviction of the revision petitioners from the land bearing Sy.Nos.236 and 237 admeasuring about 30 acres situated at Sri nagar village of Maheswaram Mandal under Section 32 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangatia Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") is assailed in this Revision Petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition- in brief are that :

(3.) The land originally belonged to one Amanagul Venkata Narayana Rao. Late Bakaram Rajaiah, father of the revision petitioners was the protected tenant thereof. His name was recorded in the final record of tenancy as protected tenant while that of A. Venkata Narayana Rao as land holder. Late Bakaram Rajaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land. On 6.2.1952, he entered into an agreement of sale with the land holder A. Venkata Narayana Rao and ever since that day, he has been cultivating the same by paying the land revenue to the Government and after his death, the revision petitioners arc in possession and enjoyment. While so, A. Venkata Narayana Rao entered into an agreemen of sale dated 6.2.1358 Fasli with the respondent No, 1 Gunde Lakshmamina in respect of the disputed land as well as some other land for a consideration of Rs.4,000.00 (O.S.). A registered sale deed was also executed by him on 13.6.1950 in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter her name was mutated in the revenue records as land holder and the name of fiakaram Rajaiah has been shown as protected tenant. On the death of Bakaram Rajaiah, the names of the revision petitioners have been entered as his successors. The respondent got a legal notice issued on 14.11.1967 to Bakaram Rajaiah terminating his tenancy on the ground that he committed default in payment of rents. The tenant gave a reply disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. It is further stated that any purchase by the respondent is void in view of the provisions of the Act. She then filed a petition under Section 32(2) of the Act seeking recovery of possession. The revision petitioners filed a counter resisting the petition. Following a judgment of this Court in Mohd. Ikramuddin v. Mohd. ismaii - 1972(2) An.WR 35, the Mandal Revenue Officer allowed the petition holding that the revision petitioners have committed willful default in payment of rent for three years and directed eviction after the appeal time i.e., 60 days from the date of the judgment.