GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. NORI RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent filed A. T. C. No. 24 of 1996 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the second respondent, for eviction from the agricultural land of Ac. 3. 24 cents in D. No. 239/2b of vatticherukuru Village under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)Tenancy Act, 1956. It is alleged that the petition schedule land was leased in the year 1992 on a maktha of 17 bags payable by January of every year and that the second respondent committed default in payment of maktha for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The A. T. C. was preceded by a legal notice, dated 13-03-1996, got issued by the first respondent demanding the second respondent, to pay maktha. The latter issued a reply admitting the allegation as to non-delivery of maktha to the former, but pleaded that it was paid for the year 1995-96 to gram Panchayat, the petitioner herein, under receipt. The second respondent opposed the application mostly on the grounds mentioned by him in the reply notice.

(2.) THE petitioner herein got itself impleaded as respondent in A. T. C. It was pleaded that there is a big tank in the village, spread over in an area of ac. 100. 00 in the Vatticherukuru Village and that the then Jaminder granted about acs. 29. 00 of land in Sy. Nos. 239 and 240 of the village for its maintenance and upkeep. The land is said to have vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and thereafter A. P. Pandhayat Raj Act. The petition schedule property is said to be part of that land. It is also mentioned that the Gram Panchayat filed O. S. No. 57 of 1966 for recovery of possession of that land and all the proceedings in relation to that land have culminated with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 931 of 1977 and 200 of 1978. Through its order, dated 25-09-2000, the trial Court allowed the A. T. C. and directed that the second respondent shall deliver vacant possession of the land to the first respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner filed A. T. A. No. 96 of 2000 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed through the order, dated 04-11-2008. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that right and the title over the property vests in the petitioner and that the same was reiterated by the Supreme Court in VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. NORI v. DEEKSHITHULU, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 228 and that there was absolutely no basis for the first respondent to claim the petition schedule land. It is contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the tenancy of the second respondent stood attorned in favour of the petitioner and in fact maktha was also being paid to it. The learned counsel submits that the courts below failed to take the legal implications of the adjudication in the earlier proceedings into account.