KPRAGANJI CHINNAMANAIDU Vs. BASAVARSU RAMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the tenants questioning the order passed by the Special Officer under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') in ATC. No. 3 of 1983 dated 12. 07. 1991 as confirmed in tenancy Appeal being ATA. No. 2 of 1991 by the District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 25. 04. 1996. The subject matter of the aforesaid ATC is dry land situated in patta No. 2313 of Sy. No. 52/1 of Gollalavalasa Village, comprising of various items 1 to 13 on various extents.

(2.) I have heard Sri K. V. Subrahamanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has very strenuously and meticulously, as usual, raised several questions on law in support of the revision. Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri E. Srinivas, has also made elaborate submissions with reference to the facts of the case to contend that the said questions of law do not arise on the facts of the case.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to briefly note the facts. The facts, in brief, are as follows: the respondents herein filed ATC. No. 3 of 1983 against the petitioners alleging that the schedule lands are ancestral property of Basavaraju narasimhamurthy, who had 1/4th share; Surya Prakasarao, who had 1/2 share and late Basavarasu Raja Rao, who also had 1/4th share. Late Basavarasu Raja Rao was the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 to 7 therein, who are managing all the lands. It is alleged that under a relinquishment deed dated 24. 07. 1970, Ex. A1, Sri Basavarasu Narasimhamurthy relinquished his 1/4th share in favour of Late Basavarasu Raja Rao for consideration. Further, the other shareholder Sri B. Surya Prakasarao executed a registered settlement deed dated 20. 02. 1982, Ex. A2, in favour of the first petitioner and thereby the petitioners acquired the exclusive ownership of the said lands. Late Basavarasu Raja Rao (husband of the first petitioner) and father of petitioners 2 to 7 had leased out the schedule mentioned lands to Late Koraganji Chinnamnaidu, the father of the first petitioner, now represented by his legal representatives in this revision and the father of petitioners 2 to 4 herein, about 16 years prior to the filing of the aforesaid ATC i. e. sometime in 1966, on an annual rent of Rs. 45/ -. It is further alleged that they were paying rents to Late Basavarasu Raja Rao till his death in 1974 but thereafter, the petitioners herein have committed default in payment of rents in spite of demands and have also sublet a portion of the lands to third parties, who were impleaded as respondents 4 to 7 in the ATC and they are also petitioners 1 to 7 in this revision. The said ATC, it appears, came to be filed on account of strained relations between the parties. It is also alleged that the said schedule land was formerly in the Zamindari Village of Gollalavalasa, within the ambit of former vizianagaram Estate, which was granted to predecessors in title to respondents herein and after the abolition of estate, a Ryotwari patta was granted to the respondents under Ex. A7 being patta No. 49, by the Special Deputy Collector. 3. The aforesaid ATC was contested by the petitioners herein by contending that Late Basavarasu Raja Rao was the headmen of Gollalavalasa village and 13 plots were given to the petitioners as Zeroyati lands and since then the petitioners are in possession as Zeroyati pattadars and the present lands in question are Service Inam lands and the respondents are only having melvaram rights, which does not entitle them to evict the petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, contended that the very patta No. 2313 granted by the Estate to the predecessor in interest of the respondents would establish that they have only limited right of management as melvaram and not a right to evict the petitioners. It is also contended by them that after the abolition of estates, on the directions of Late Basavarasu Raja Rao, the petitioners are paying the enhanced ryotwari assessment instead of paying rents and as such there are neither any arrears of rent nor any default. Petitioners, therefore, claim that they have accrued perpetual rights in the lands as occupiers of Zeroyati land, which is heritable and alienable in their hands. The allegation of subletting was also denied.