Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Namburi Bangarraju vs Indukuri Satyanarayanaraju And Ors. on 10 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(4)ALD660, 2005(4)ALT235, 2005 A I H C 3608, (2005) 4 ANDH LT 235
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent judgments rendered in A.T.C. No. 46 of 2002 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapet, and A.T.A. No. 14 of 2004 on the file of the Appellate Authority-cum-District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry.
2. The petitioner filed A.T.C. No. 46 of 2002 under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act') for the relief of declaration that he is a statutory tenant and that he cannot be evicted otherwise than through the procedure prescribed by law. According to him, his father late Suryanarayanaraju was the tenant of 0-40 cents of Schedule property from the year 1955 and after his death he continued as tenant. He alleged that the land was leased out to them by the members of Dandu family of their village and that in a suit for partition between Dandu family on the one hand and the respondents herein on the other hand, the suit schedule land was allotted to the share of the respondents. It is alleged that in the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner appointed by the Court tried to deliver possession of the suit schedule land to the respondents and at that time the petitioner raised an objection stating that he is the tenant of the land.
3. The respondents resisted the A.T.C. They pleaded that the petition schedule property is one of the items in O.S. No. 298 of 1971 filed by them for partition against Dandu family and after the preliminary decree became final, steps were taken in the final decree proceedings. It was alleged that the schedule property was allotted to their share and when it was about to be delivered, the Dandu people, the defendants in O.S. No. 298 of 1971, have set up the petitioner to deprive them of the fruits of the decree.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Ex. A-1, a bunch of rent receipts was marked.
5. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. R-1 to R-4 were marked.
6. Through its judgment dated 22-6-2004, the trial Court dismissed the A.T.C. The petitioner filed the appeal before the District Court and it was also dismissed on 20-9-2004.
7. Sri S. Suryaprakasa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the tenancy in favour of the petitioner and his predecessor, his father, was spoken to by the natives of the village as P.Ws. 2 to 7 and that the rent receipts marked as Ex. A-1 would clinchingly prove the existence of tenancy. He submits that the reasons assigned by the Courts below are not at all germane to the subject matter of the proceedings and that the benefits under the social legislation such as the Act were denied to the petitioner.
8. Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner was set up by the defendants in O.S. No. 298 of 1971 after they have lost in the suit, appeal and second appeal. He contends that except the oral assertion and fabricated rent receipts, there is no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. He contends that if really the tenancy was in existence since 1955, the revenue records of one form or other would certainly have evidenced it.
9. The petitioner claimed that he is the tenant of the petition schedule property. According to him, the tenancy commenced somewhere in 1955. If it is established that he is the tenant, he is entitled to be extended protection under the Act. Inasmuch as such declaration would result in corresponding disadvantage to the respondents, heavy burden lies upon the petitioner to establish the existence of tenancy.
10. As P.W. 1, the petitioner repeated the contents of his petition. He sought to derive corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 7. P.Ws. 2 to 7 have stated that they are aware that P.W. 1 is the tenant of the petition schedule property. In the cross-examination, it was elicited through all of them that they do not even know the boundaries of the property. If really they have seen the petitioner cultivating the land, it was expected of them, to know as to who the neighbouring owners are or at least as to the activity in the nearby area. Further, it has emerged that the petition schedule property is a coconut garden in a dry land. Nothing is indicated either by the petitioner or by the other witnesses as to the nature of cultivation undertaken thereon.
11. The petition schedule property is situated in an adjoining village where revenue records are maintained meticulously. If really the land was under possession of the petitioner and his father for the past half a century, it would certainly have been reflected in one category of the revenue records or the other. The petitioner did not file any such records. He tried to cover up this lapse at the appellate stage by filing Ex. A-2, a certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat to the effect that the land is part of Gramakantam (village site) and that the pattadar pass books are not issued for such land. The appellate Court had examined the same and took the view that even if the pattadar pass books cannot be issued for such land, there is no prohibition for issuance of 10(1) account. A tenancy, to receive the protection under the Act and exposing the landowners to severe disadvantage is required to be supported either by written documents between the parties, or entries in the revenue records. Mere oral assertion does not serve the purpose. The failure on the part of the petitioner to file any such records establishes that he was not at all in possession of the property, muchless a tenant thereof.
12. Another important aspect of the matter is that the so called rent receipts were issued by the defendants in O.S. No. 298 of 1971. If really the land was under lease, they would certainly have stated that fact in that suit. They litigated the matter for the past few decades. When ultimately they could not scuttle the partition any further, they have set up the petitioner, with the sole objective of preventing the partition, in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 298 of 1971. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
13. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.