NAINI VENKATVARDHAN RAO Vs. B. RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act. It is unfortunate that this dispute has been pending ever since 1959. The petitioner herein by name Naini Venkatvardha Rao filed an application on 2.2.1959 before the Deputy Collector, Mahaboobabad, which is described as a plaint, for correction of certain entries in the tenancy register regarding Survey Nos. 944, 945, 1141 and 1160 under the Rules relating to the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction) Rules, 1956. The petitioner is admittedly the pattadar of lands bearing S. Nos. 944, 945, 1141 and 1160 situate in the village of Nellikudur. It is the case of the plaintiff that the respondent B. Ramamoorthy was acting as the agent of the Plaintiff and has been looking after the cultivation of the plaintiff's lands. It is alleged in the application that to his surprise he was served with notice of an application filed by the respondent (Application No. 133/58 under section 38 of the Tenancy Act) in which the respondent alleged that he is the protected tenant of these lands and that the pattadar who is the petitioner should be directed to sell the lands to him. The petitioner immediately filed the application, out of which this Revision arises, stating that the defendant is not at all his tenant-much less a protected tenant-that taking advantage of this position as the manager of the properties of the plaintiff, he managed to get his name entered as a protected tenant in the final tenancy register without any notice to the petitioner, whereas his land bearing S. Nos. 944 and 945 were being cultivated by his tenants Kanakam Ayilayya and V. Veeraiah while the lands bearing S. Nos. 1141 and 1160 were being cultivated by the tenant B. Kristayya. The petitioner therefore prayed for correction of the entry in the register by deleting the name of the respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that his previous tenants promised to surrender the lands to him for this self-cultivation that taking advantage of this fact, the respondent, without the knowledge of the petitioner made the tenants file an application before the Tahsildar to delete their names and to enter his name as protected tenant. The petitioner, therefore, came to know that the respondent having got his mane so entered, obtained protected tenancy certificate and after waiting for nearly six years filed the application directing the petitioner to sell the lands to him alleging that he had already paid a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to the petitioner in two instalments of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 5000/- each. The proceedings for obtaining the sale deed has been stayed pending disposal of these proceedings. The respondent filed a written statement in which while admitting that he was supervising the petitioner's agriculture, stated that so far as these lands are concerned, he was cultivating them on lease. It is further stated in the written statement that Kanakam Ayilayya and Kristaiah, on there own accord, filed an application before the Tahsildar stating that their names were wrongly entered as protected tenants and that the allegation made against him, is not correct. He also contended in para 6 of the written statement that so far as the suit lands are concerned, the petitioner gave them on an oral lease to him for a period of 10 years, that is, in about 1949, that the protected tenancy certificate obtained by the respondent had become final as the petitioner did not file any application within one year as contemplated by the Tenancy Act and that the petition is not maintainable as the correction rules of 1956 are ultra vires. The petitioner filed a rejoinder denying that the respondent was ever his tenant and that his tenants were only the persons already mentioned, namely, Kanakam Ailayya, V. Veeraiah and B. Kistaiah that the defendant played mischief and got his name entered as a protected tenant and that the oral lease was false. The Deputy Collector passed his order dated 22.12.1959 dismissing the application as bared by time without going into the merits of the case. The land-lord petitioner took up the appeal summarily agreeing with the conclusion of the Deputy Collector without giving any reason. Against the side order, the petitioner came to this court in Revision No. 1804 of 1960. This Court while allowing the Revision, remanded the appeal for fresh disposal to the appellate authority observing that the order of the appellate authority was most unsatisfactory and that it did not contain any reasons. After remand, the Collector took up the appeal and having negatived the plea of limitation on the ground that no time limit is prescribed under the rules, remanded the application for disposal on merits to the Deputy Collector. Thereafter the Deputy Collector recorded the evidence of witnesses examined on either side and after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, gave a judgment dated 15.9.1966 holding that the oral lease pleaded by the defendant was not proved and that the plaintiff is not however entitled to any relief for for the reason that the petition is not maintainable in view of the Judgment of Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. in (1966)I An. W.R. 490. Against the said Judgment, the petitioner again took up the matter in appeal to the collector, Warangal District. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 29.12.1967 holding that in view of the said ruling of the High Court the petition for correction of the register is not maintainable. Having held that the petition is not maintainable the Collector did not go into the merits of the case. The petitioner had again to approach this court by filing the above Revision.

(2.) Sri V. Madhava Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the ruling relied on by the Courts below is not applicable to the facts of the case and that the Collector should have decided the case on the merits. On the other hand, Sri Raghuvir, the learned counsel for the respondent raised the following points: (i) that the protected tenancy certificate issued in favour of the respondent become conclusive under Section 35 of the Act; and (ii) that the entries in the final tenancy register have become final, that they are not liable for corrections and that the petition is not therefore maintainable. Hence the main point for consideration before me is whether the application filed by the petitioner in the first court is maintainable.

(3.) Before I deal with the question of maintainability, I think it is necessary to call for a finding on the question whether the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner under an oral lease for a period of 10 pears prior to the petition as contended by the respondent. I, therefore, direct the appellate authority to give his findings on the following points:-