BAMMIDI JAGANNAYAKULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands admittedly owned by Shri Shyama Sundara Swamy Temple, Tekkali are sought to be acquired by the State in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri Shyama Sundara Swamy Temple has not been made a party in this writ petition. The acquisition is sought to be challenged on one ground only. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits a proposition of law which has to be considered. He submits that, land under tenancy which is subject to the provisions of Tenancy Act can in no circumstances be acquired by the State Government. He submits that since the tenancy created under Tenancy Act is a tenancy in perpetuity, therefore acquisition of the land would be defeating such provisions. He submits that the respondent No.3 had in fact issued notice under Section 80(1 )(b) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987), but surprisingly the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 26th May, 1999. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of A.P. Tenancy Act. He submits that 'tenant' is defined under Section 2 of the Tenancy Act. According to Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act, 'cultivating tenant' means a person who cultivates by his own labour or by that of any other member of his family or by hired labour under his supervision and control, any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. Reference is then made to Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 15, a cultivating tenant has a right of prior purchase over the land leased to him. Tenancy can be terminated under Section 13, adjudication of disputes and appeals can be done under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Special emphasis is laid down by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on Section 17 of the Act which lays down that the provisions of the Tenancy Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any preexisting law, custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of a Court. Under Section 11, in case of change of ownership of the land, the cultivating tenant shall be entitled to continue with the tenancy on the terms and conditions with erstwhile landlord. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 10 is the most important section which was brought into force by an amendment being A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974 (ActNo.39 of 1974). According to sub-section (1) of Section 10, every lease subsisting at the commencement of the Act 39 of 1974 shall be deemed to be in perpetuity. Under sub-section (2) of Section 10, all other tenancies which commenced after the commencement of Act 39 of 1974 have a life of minimum six years.

(2.) The whole argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the tenancy is created before 1974 and the petitioners are continuing to be the tenants till date, therefore their tenancy is a tenancy in perpetuity. On the other hand, the Tenancy Act has a overriding effect over the other Acts, therefore provisions of Land Acquisition Act would not apply, because if provisions of Land Acquisition Act are applied the petitioners will be losing the rights which they have as cultivating tenants under the Tenancy Act. In nut-shell what is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, a land which is owned and possessed by an owner is subject to Land Acquisition Act, but land which is under the cultivation of a cultivating tenant cannot be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The proposition itself seems to be illogical. A tenant cannot have more rights than the owner. When the question of acquisition of land comes, if the owner cannot defeat the provisions of Land Acquisition Act can a tenant defeat such provisions. The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act has been promulgated in the year 1987 and is known as Act 30 of 1987, whereas the Tenancy Act is a 1956 Act. Even Section 10 of the Tenancy Act which was amended, has been amended in the year 1974 that is much before the 1987 Act. Therefore, it is doubtful, whether with regard to lands in tenancy belonging to the charitable institutions are subject to Act 30 of 1987, or, the rights under Tenancy Act are still available to the tenants, or not. But, it will not be necessary for this Court to go into that question in these proceedings, because, even if the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are accepted as they are, even then the proposition propounded by him cannot be accepted. Under Section 11 of the Tenancy Act change of ownership in lands which are under tenants is possible. So, by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the State has expressed its intention to take the lands into their ownership. Under the Land Acquisition Act, State can become the owner of any property provided the property is taken for a public purpose and after following the procedure laid down by the Land Acquisition Act. Change of ownership is not barred under the A.P. Tenancy Act, therefore, State can become owner of the lands which are owned by landlords whether they are temples or private individuals. Once the land is taken in the ownership of the State, the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 becomes inoperative by virtue of Section 18 of the same Act. Section 18 of the Tenancy Act lays down that, nothing in the Tenancy Act shall apply to the lands owned by the State Government or the Central Government. Acquisition, per se, is not barred under the Tenancy Act. Change of ownership, is also not barred under the Tenancy Act. There cannot be any bar to the State Government to take the lands into its possession under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act which are in the possession of tenants at a particular point of time. For this reason alone, I believe that the arguments advanced at the Bar cannot be accepted.

(3.) The question has also received the attention of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Narayana v. State of A.P., 1990 (1) ALT 237 (DB), in which case the Court found that, there is nothing wrong in disposal of the land belonging to the charitable institutions either voluntarily or through acquisition under Land Acquisition Act. The Division Bench only held that the tenant will be entitled to share in the compensation. Even in the present case, under the Land Acquisition Act there are various safeguards for the petitioners to claim compensation as tenants.