JAKRIA ALIAS BABULAL Vs. TAHSILDAR DIVI TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution gives rise to an important and interesting question of law ralating to the scop and appliaction of the provision to Sec. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andbra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), The brief statement of ths material and relevant facts may be stated the third respondent herein was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 4,700.00 at the auction held on May, 28, 1967 for the year 1957-58 of the leasehold right of Ac. 11-25 cents situated in Turakapalem, bamlet of Kosur, Krishna District, belonging to a minor Nazi Md. Shaik Mohiuddin by the 4th respondent who was appointed as interim property guardian inder Sec, 12 of the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890 in O. P. No. 54/66 on the file of the District Court, Krishna filed by the minor's natural mother under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint her as the guardian of the person and properties of the minor who was let into possession of that land. Thereupon, an application under Sec. 10 (1) read with Section 16 (1) of the Act was filed before the Tahsildar, Divi Taluk by the tenant to allow him to be continued in possession of the lands as a cultivating tenant for a period of five years on the same conditions. The application was resisted by the property guardian and one Mr. Jakriah alias Babulal, the the petitioner herein, on the ground that the lease was only for a period of one year and the tenancy terminates the moment the tern, porary guardian ceases to function in view of the permanent court guardian being appointed, The Tahsildar upholding the objections of the respondents, dismissed the application of the tenant. On appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the order of the Tahsildar was set aside and the application of the tenant was allowed declaring his right to continue for a minimum period of six years from the date of his lease. Hence, this writ petition by the 2nd respondent before the lower Tribunals, although the property guardian has not preferred any application.

(2.) Sri Tata Rao appearing for the petitioner contends that the 4th respondent was originally appointed as a receiver under Order 40, Rule I C. P. C to auction the leasehold right of the minor's lands having in extent of Ac. 11-36 cents wet on which sugarcane is grown, and hence, the proviso to section 11 of the Act will come into play, thereby disentitling the tenant to continue any longer than the period of lease specifically granted to him.

(3.) Miss Saraladevi for the tenant argues that the 4th respondent was appointed as a temporary guardian under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, but not a receiver, to manage the property of the minor, that'the property guardian cannot be equated to a receiver, that the provisions of Section 11 are not attracted as there is no change of ownership of the lands and hence, the proviso to section 11 of the Act does not come into play. The property guardian, though served with a notice, has not chosen either to appear in person or through a counsel or make any representation.