ANREDDI CHANDRA REDDY Vs. MOHD OSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision petition by the protected tenant under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which would be hereinafter referred to as the Act, directed against the order of the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the Revision Petitioner herein, preferred against the order of the Sub-Collector, directing delivery of possession of certain lands to the respondent.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this Revision are as follows: The Revision Petitioner is the protected tenant, holding the tenancy under the father of the respondent with regard to Survey Ncs. 150, 165 to 168 177 admeasuring Ac.32-00 guntas and Survey Nos 152, 155, 163 and 164 measuring Ac. 6.14 guntas wet, situated at Manchval Village in Ibrahim- patnam taluk, Hyderabad district. The protected tenant had been in possession of the same since 1947 and after the enforcement of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act he was granted the protected tenancy certificate. The father of the respondent has initiated proceedings under section 44 of the said Act by filing an application for reservation and obtained reservation certificate, which is a step in aid for resumption, on 31-12-1959. This order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting reservation certificate was communicated to the Tahsildar for delivery of possession. It would appear that no action was taken by the Tahsildar in pursuance of this order. The father of the respondent died in the year 1965. It is however relevant to note that in the year 1962 the father of the respondent by name Sherfuddin filed an application for resumption of possession before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar gave notice of the said petition to the protected tenant, who raised an objection that with regard to the restoration of possession in pursuance of the reservation certificate, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar and that such a restoration order can be made only by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Tahsildar by his order dated 7-4-1962 upheld the objection raised by the protected tenant and held that he has no jurisdiction to restore possession on the basis of reservation certificate granted by the Deputy Collector. Since the said Shurfuddin died in the year 1965, the respondent herein (Son of Shurfuddin) filed an application in the month of June, 1977 before the Sub-Collector for resumption. On the said application the Sub-Collector directed the Tahsildar to restore possession to the respondent. In pursuance of that order, which is in the nature of an administrative order the respondent was put in possession in an extent of Ac. 28.00 and as on the remaining Ac.10.00 of land there was some crop, posession could not be delivered. Aggrieved by the order of the delivery of possession, the Revision Petitioner preferred a Writ petition' which was allowed. Pending the Writ Petition, he also filed an appeal against the order of delivery of possession before the Collector. The writ petition was allowed. As against the Writ Petition, a writ appeal was preferred. Since an appeal before the Collector was pending, the Writ Appeal was dismissed with the observation that the pleas can be raised in the appeal. Accordingly additional grounds were raised before the Collector,. The further case of the Revision petition is that on 6-1-1977 the respondent executed an agreement of sale for selling this land for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and that the entire consideration amount was received by the respondent. Before the Collector a number of pleas were raised including the question of sale. According to the respondent, the so called agreement of sale was a false fictitious one and the agreement was a forged one. The Revision Petitioner filed a suit O.S.No. 104/1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam for specific performance of the agreement of sale and in the said suit he obtained an injunction with regard to the ten acres of land which continued to be in his possession. The learned Joint Collector after hearing the Revision Petitioner at length held that the reservation certificate granted in favour of the father of the respondent enures for the benefit of the legal representative also and that no further enquiry at the stage of resumption was warranted and consequently there was no need to give any fresh notice of any subsequent enquiry for the purpose of resumption and that the said proceedings are valid. Aggrieved by the said order this Revision petition is filed.

(3.) Mr, Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner raised the following contentions : (1) For the purpose of reservation of land under section 44, a land-holder has to establish his bonafides. The reservation order passed in favour of Sherfuddin is a personal right and therefore the respondent cannot take advantage of such a reservation and he has to establish his bonafides as required by section 44 of the Act. In other words, his contention is that the reservation certificate granted as early as 1959 does not enure for the benefit of the legal representative and if the legal representative wants to resume the land, he has to again establish his bonafide requirement for personal cultivation. (2) From the date of the reservation order a period of more than 17 years have elapsed and therefore the resumption in pursuance of the reservation certificate cannot be said to be within limitation. (3) It was contended that the reservation certificate was issued by determination of the tenancy and the possession of the the Revision Petitioner has become adverse and by the date of the delivery of possession the Revision Petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession and as such the Revenue authorities are not competent to restore possession for the purpose of resumption. (4) It was also contended that before the delivery of possession was effected, it was incumbent upon the Revenue authorities to issue a notice in view of the Transfer of possession and Eviction Rules made under Section 97 read with Sections 32, 94 & 98 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. (5) Even otherwise under the procedure to be followed by the Administrative Tribunal, principles of natural justice require a notice to the tenant before delivery is effected or his eviction is ordered. Thus, the contention is for want of notice the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed. I would presently deal with these contentions.