Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In G.O. Ms. No. 2064 revenue (F) dated 7-5-1980 Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 97 read with section 38-E prescribing the manner for restoration of possession to the protected tenant or the certificate holder. Rule 1 empowers the Tahsildar to restore possession of the land to a protected tenant or holder of the certificate after giving notice of eviction to the occupant thereof in the form appended to the Rules, giving 15 days time Under R. 2, the Tahsildar has to examine any valid and acceptable objections offered and pass suitable order of eviction after recording the reasons therefore. Under Rule 3, if no representation is made within the given time of 15 days the Tahsildar shall forthwith proceed with the eviction of occupation upon whom notice has been served and restore possession of the land to the protected tenant or the holder of the certificate as the case may be.

42. Another contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the ruling in narasaiah's case, (1978 (2) APLJ (High Court) 36) (supra), the persons in possession are entitled to raise the plea that the rights of the protected tenant who was out of possession of the land get extinguished by reasons of the persons in possession of the land acquiring rights by adverse possession.

43. Jeevan Reddy, J. Held in Narasayya v. Tahsidar (W.P. No. 327/77 dated 12-12-1977) that the provisions of the Limitation Act were inapplicable to the proceedings under the Act, but the division Bench in narasaiah's case 9supra0 differed with the said view and held that the provisions of S. 27 of the limitation Act apply and the rights of the protected tenant who was out of possession of the land for over 12 years would stand extinguished and therefore he would not be entitled to recover possession of the lands from the persons in possession, but, as already held by us, the question whether the protected tenant's rights stood extinguished by adverse possession or not is a matter to be agitated in the proceedings taken for the issue of a certificate under section 38-E of the Act read with the relevant rules, and the same cannot be agitated after ownership has been transferred and a certificate has been issued to the protected tenant under S. 38-E. A person having an interest in the land or claiming rights by adverse possession in the said land, should set up his objections or claims in the proceedings taken under S. 38-E read with the relevant rules before the Tribunal constituted for the said purpose and the Tribunal could then hear and dispose of the objections and claims. Having failed to set of the objections and claims at the stage of enquiry under S. 38-E and the rule made thereunder it is not open to such persons to set up once again such claims or objections after a certificate has been issued, and at the stage the proceedings taken under the amended proviso for restoration of possession of the lands to the protected tenant or the certificate holder.

44. One other contention urged is, that under sec. 38-E ownership of the lands held by a protected tenant stands transferred to and vest in him only if the said protected tenant was in actual physical possession of the lands and a certificate of ownership could only be issued to such a protected tenant in possession of the land and therefore a certificate issued under S. 38-E without restoration of possession of the land to the protected tenant under the Explanation to sec. 38-E (1) is not valid. Section 38-E (1) says that from the notified date the ownership of all lands" held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their land holders in such area under any provision of this chapter shall subject to the conditions laid down in sub-sec. (V) of S. 38, stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands.

47. One of the contentions urged by the petitioners in Narasaiah's case (1978 (2) APLJ (High Court) 36) (supra) was that the proceedings taken by the Tahsildar or the Tribunal for restoration of possession to the protected tenants without issuing notice to the persons in possession were violative of the principles of natural justice. With a view to provide for such a notice, the legislature has intervened and introduced the proviso by Amendment Act 2/79 and conferred jurisdiction on the Tahsildar to restore possession of the lands to the protected tenant or certificate holder, and also provides for issue of notice and an opportunity to persons in possession to make their representations in accordance with the rules made thereunder. The Rules made in G.O. Ms. No. 2064 Revenue (F) dated 7-5-1980 made under section 97 read with section 38-E requires a notice to be issued to the persons in possession and an opportunity to make their representations before the Tahsildar passed any order under the amended proviso for restoration of possession of the land to the protected tenant or the holder of the certificate as the case may be. Thus now, statutorily the amended proviso provides for issue of a notice and opportunity to the persons in possession to make their representations. Hence the tahsildar has to comply with the procedure laid down by the proviso in which case there will be no question of violation of principles of natural justice.