THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. versus MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS. on 1 October 2021

[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161

THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS.

v.

MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2021)

OCTOBER 01, 2021

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act, 1950 – ss.19, 38-E – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Protected tenant – Oral surrenderof the tenancy rights, if permissible – High Court set aside the orderdtd.19.2.82 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer grantingoccupancy rights to predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-purchaser as well as the order passed by Joint Collector dismissingthe appeal filed by the protected tenant – Occupancy rights grantedto the purchaser stood annulled – On appeal, held: Surrender oforal tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under theTenancy Act except in the manner prescribed u/s.38-E (5) r/w s.19,Tenancy Act – In the present case, the oral surrender by the protectedtenant is set up in the year 1954 followed by sale of tenancy rightsin 1957 – Thereafter, the petition u/s.19, Tenancy Act was filed toseek approval of the Tenancy rights, but was withdrawn on thebasis of an order withdrawing the appeal against the grant ofoccupancy rights – Thus, the purchasers took steps to procuresurrender of tenancy rights, realizing that such surrender cannotbe oral or by executing a sale deed – It was a cover up operationinitiated by the purchaser – Since, neither the oral surrender norsurrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, thesubsequent surrender approved by Mandal Revenue Officer is anullity as such surrender is in contravention of the statutoryprovisions – Protected tenant was conferred ownership rightsu/s.38-E, Tenancy Act on 23.3.75 whereas the conferment ofoccupancy rights were granted in the year 1982 under the InamsAct – On grant of certificate of ownership u/s.38-E, the protectedtenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land – Oncethe protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not beany occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Atheir ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificateu/s.38-E, Tenancy Act – Appeals allegedly filed by the protectedtenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate andsubsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential – Title ofthe protected tenants is complete and the ownership vests with them– Entitled to restoration of possession.B

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act, 1950 – ss.19, 32, 38-E – Held: Neither s.19 nor s.32forming part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable inrespect of protected tenant except when the reference is made to theprovisions of s.19 on the basis of s.38-E(5) which starts with a nonCobstante clause giving overriding effect to anything contained ins.38-E.

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,1955 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act, 1950 – Operation of the Acts – Held: Both the Inams ActDand the Tenancy Act are enacted by the same Legislature – TheInams Act is a later Act enacted in 1955 but s.38-E (1) wassubstituted in 1971 which starts with a non- obstante clause–Therefore, ownership certificate granted under the Tenancy Actwould prevail over the grant of occupancy rights certificate underEthe Inams Act – Both the Acts operate in different spheres.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IVof the Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materiallydifferent from that of tenants governed by Chapter III of theFTenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at much higherpedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of theland, right has been given to him to seek possession later.Therefore, neither Section 19 nor Section 32 forming part ofChapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in respect ofGprotected tenant except when the reference is made to theprovisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5) whichstarts with a non obstante clause giving overriding effect toanything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates theCollector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain thegenuineness of the surrender of right made by the protectedH

tenant. This exercise had to be done before the surrender oftenancy rights and not subsequently after many years of allegedsurrender on the strength of unequal bargaining power with thetenant who survives on the basis of agriculture activities. Thepurchasers relied upon an oral surrender of tenancy rights inthe year 1954 and later by a written document of 5.2.1957. Theexecution of the document in the year 1957 unequivocally provesthe factum of protected tenancy of the respondents herein. Suchsurrender is contrary to Section 47 of the Tenancy Act prior toits omission by AP Act No. 12 of 1969 and in contravention ofSection 38-E(5) read with Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.[Paras 31, 32][1196-E-H; 1197-A]

1.2 A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession interms of Section 36 as well as Section 44 of the Tenancy Actwhich prohibits the termination of protected tenancy. The provisoto sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Tenancy Act puts completeembargo on a land holder to exercise the right of resumptionunless he has within a period of eighteen months from thecommencement of the said Act sought reservation of land toexercise his right or resumption in terms of the commencementof Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,1955. The Deputy Collector in terms of the said provision had tomake a necessary enquiry and issue a certificate that the landhas been so reserved. Thus, the land holder had no right toterminate the tenancy after the commencement of Amending Act,1955 except after an enquiry which was to be conducted by theDeputy Collector. No such reservation had been made nor anyenquiry was conducted, therefore, the rights of protected tenantcannot be defeated. The purchasers have relied upon the oralsurrender of protected tenancy in the year 1954. Such surrenderof oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under theTenancy Act except in the manner which is prescribed underSection 38-E (5) read with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Stillfurther, the protected tenant has a right to seek possession interms of Section 36 of the Tenancy Act. Even in terms of Section38-D, if the land holder intends to sell the land which is inpossession of a protected tenant, he has to give a notice in writingof his intention to such protected tenant. [Paras 33, 34][1197-B-F]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1.3 Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificateof ownership under Section 38-E, the protected tenants shall bedeemed to be the full owners of such land. Further, explanationprovided under Section 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenanthas been dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by theorder of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, thenBnotwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, orthe order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal shall be deemedto be holding the land on the date of notification. The Tahsildar isunder an obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of anapplication by the protected tenant, to hold a summary enquiryCand direct taking of land in possession of the land holder or anyother person claiming through or under him. The possessionfrom a protected tenant can be taken only if the surrender oftenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The landowner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 ofthe Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within oneDyear. Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancyrights by protected tenant and even if the tenancy is terminated,the land holder is personally liable to restore possession to thetenant, if he fails to cultivate the land within one year oftermination of tenancy. Once a certificate of ownership is grantedEwhich is required to be published in the Government Gazette,the land stands transferred and vested in the protected tenant asa full owner of such land. Such certificate is final subject to therights of the landowner under the Tenancy Act which is only toseek compensation. [Paras 35, 36][1197-F-H; 1198-A-C]F1.4 In the present case, the entire argument is based uponthe fact of oral surrender and subsequent filing and withdrawal ofappeal in the year 1989 and of filing a belated appeal against theownership certificate in the year 2015. The fact of filing of anappeal and its withdrawal was not raised in the first instance bythe purchasers in proceedings before the Joint Collector or beforeGthe High Court. Since such documents were not produced at theearliest opportunity, and the veracity of such documents is notbeyond doubt, there cannot be any attribution of knowledge ofthe grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers. Itis strange that the appeal was withdrawn on 14.2.1989 but SectionH

19 petition was dismissed on the basis of alleged withdrawal ofappeal on 31.1.1989. The High Court has held that the interestof the protected tenant cannot be validly conveyed in law in viewof Section 30 of the Tenancy Act. In the present case, the surrenderof tenancy rights is before the Mandal Revenue Officer on31.1.1989, whereas as per the proviso to Section 19(1)(a) of theTenancy Act, a tenant can surrender his rights at least a monthbefore the commencement of the year and that surrender is tobe made by the tenant in writing. Such surrender is to be admittedby him before the Tehsildar and the authority is to satisfy itselfthat surrender is made in good faith. In the present case, the oralsurrender by the protected tenant is set up in the year 1954.Such surrender is followed by sale of tenancy rights in the year1957. Thereafter, the petition under Section 19 of the TenancyAct was filed to seek approval of the Tenancy rights, suchapplication was withdrawn on the basis of an order withdrawingthe appeal against the grant of occupancy rights. This shows thatthe purchasers have taken steps to procure surrender of tenancyrights, realizing that such surrender cannot be orally or byexecuting a sale deed. It was a cover up operation initiated bythe purchaser but the same was still against the mandate of thestatute as the finding of the surrender has to be recorded by theTehsildar. Since, neither the oral surrender nor surrender inwriting was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the subsequentsurrender approved by the Mandal Revenue Officer is a nullityand bears no legal effect as such surrender is in contravention ofthe statutory provisions. The protected tenant was conferredownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act on23.3.1975 whereas the conferment of occupancy rights weregranted in the year 1982 under the Inams Act. [Paras 37,38][1198-E-H; 1199-A-E]

1.5 Sub-section (5) of Section 38-E provides for an enquiryto ascertain the genuineness of surrender of the right by theprotected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section19. There is no provision in Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act tosurrender protected tenancy rights. However, if an application ismade under Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act, the genuinenessof such surrender is required to be ascertained by the Collector.The High Court has failed to notice that the explanation in sub- AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asection (1) of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act specificallyprovides that if a protected tenant, on account of his beingdispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of theTahsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of theland on the date of the notification issued under sub-section (1),then, the Tahsildar shall notwithstanding anything contained inBthe said Section 32, either suo motu or on the application of theprotected tenant hold a summary enquiry, and direct that suchland in possession of the land holder or any person claimingthrough or under him in that area, shall be taken from suchpossession thereof and shall be restored to the protected tenant.C[Paras 42, 44][1200-D-E, G-H; 1201-A]

Ponnala Narasing Rao v. Nallolla Pantaiah (1998) 9SCC 183 : 1998 ( 7 ) JT 600; Vorla RamachandraReddy & Anr. v. Joint Collector I & Ors. (2021) SCCOnLine TS 703; Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali KhanD& Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 410 : [2007] 1 SCR 1223 –distinguished.

1.6 The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenantagainst the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequentlybeing withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant ofEownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of the TenancyAct, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners. Once theprotected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not beany occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divestedof their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificateunder Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was alsoFnot disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of the protectedtenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests withthem. There was no right with the purchaser to claim occupancyrights on the basis of possession since 1.11.1973 upon surrenderof protected tenancy rights. If the surrender of protected tenancyGrights is not in accordance with the mandate of the statute, thepossession from 1.11.1973 would be inconsequential as suchpossession would not affect the rights of the protected tenantwho is entitled to statutory protection. In fact, the grant ofCertificate unequivocally transfers ownership rights to theprotected tenant.[Paras 47, 48][1202-D-G]H

1.7 The Inams Act is a subsequent statute than the TenancyAct Section 33 of the Inams Act is to the effect that nothing inthe Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of theprovisions of the Tenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights andobligations of Inamdar and his tenants, save insofar as the saidprovisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisionsof this Act. Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act, as substituted inthe year 1971, starts with a non-obstante clause giving overridingeffect to any other law for the time being in force. Such sub-clausewill include the Inams Act and that Inams Act will not be operativein the case of Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act. This notificationwas issued on 1.1.1973 to cover the entire Telangana Area of theState. Both the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act are enacted bythe same Legislature. The Inams Act is a later Act enacted in theyear 1955 but Section 38-E (1) was substituted in the year 1971which starts with a non- obstante clause. Therefore, ownershipcertificate granted under the Tenancy Act would prevail over thegrant of occupancy rights certificate under the Inams Act. Boththe Acts operate in different spheres. Inams Act deals with theland owner, whereas the Tenancy Act protects the rights of thetiller i.e., tenant including a protected tenant. Section 38-E of theTenancy Act was inserted initially in the year 1954 andsubsequently substituted in 1971 giving overriding effect to suchprovision. Therefore, an Inamdar under the Inams Act would nothave any right of allotment of occupancy rights in view ofoverriding effect given to Section 38-E. [Para 49][1202-G-H;1203-A-E]

1.8 However, ownership rights were granted to theprotected tenant in respect of land measuring 19 acres and 16guntas whereas occupancy rights have been granted in respectof the land measuring 31.05 guntas including of land falling inSurvey Nos. 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla on 19.2.1982.Therefore, the said occupancy rights certificate in favor of thepurchaser shall be valid in respect of the land falling under SurveyNos. 61 and 62, which is not the land claimed by the protectedtenant as part of their tenancy. The Occupancy Rights Certificatein respect of land falling in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 is nulland void and inoperative. The protected tenant shall be entitledto restoration of possession in terms of explanation to Section AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A38-E (1) read with Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildarto ensure that the possession is delivered to the protected tenantwithin 3 months. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed exceptto the extent of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in respect ofwhich the occupancy certificate granted to the purchasers on19.2.1982 would be valid. [Paras 50-52][1203-F-H; 1204-A-B]BS. Rangaiah and Ors. v. Collector Medak & Ors. (1996)SCC Online AP 275; S. Veera Reddy v. ChetlapalliChandaiaha (1994) SCC Online AP 510; BhimavarapuVenkaiah & Anr. v. RDO (1999) SCC Online AP 896;S. Narsasimha and Ors. v. Joint Collector-II, RangaCReddy District (2006) SCC Online AP 57 –distinguished.Kotaiah & Anr. v. Property Association of the BaptistChurches(P) Ltd. (1989) 3 SCC 424 : [1989] 3 SCR472; Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v.DS. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs & Ors. (2010) 1SCC 756 : [2009] 16 SCR 47; B. Bal Reddy v. TeegalaNarayana Reddy (2016) 15 SCC 102 : [2016] 4 SCR62 – relied on.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.E(2019) SCC Online SC 975; Jai Narain Parasrampuriav. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC 756 : [2006] 5Suppl. SCR 325; Jupudi Bhushanam v. Joint Collector,Khammam and Ors. (1996) SCC OnLine AP 941; KasaMuthanna and Another v. Sunke Rajanna and 11 Ors.F(2015) SCC OnLine Hyd 592; Sada v. The Tahsildar(1987) 2 APLJ 397; J. Narayana & Ors. v. JainapallyPedda Kistaiah and Ors. (2013) SCC OnLine AP 289– referred to.

THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALARAMULAMMA & ORS.

[1989] 3 SCR 472relied onPara 20A[2009] 16 SCR 47relied onPara 20

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2506of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2019 of the High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No.3848 of 2018.

B

With

Civil Appeal No. 2507 of 2021.

Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., D. Ramakrishna Reddy,V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms. D. Tejaswi Reddy,Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, R. V. Yogesh, Nishesh Sharma, Advs. for theAppellants.

C

B. Adi Narayan Rao, Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advs., BalramGoud, Abid Ali Beeran, Mithun Shashank, Sarath S. Janardanan,Ms. Filza Moonis, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy,M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

EF

1. These two appeals are directed against the order passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana andAndhra Pradesh whereby revision under Section 28 of the AndhraPradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955[1] was allowedon 3.6.2019 while setting aside the order dated 19.2.1982 passed by theRevenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy rights to Shri ThotaBalakrishna Reddy, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants[2] inrespect of the land measuring 31.05 guntas falling in survey Nos. 53, 54,55, 56, 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla as well as the order dated 4.12.2017passed by the Joint Collector whereby the appeal filed on behalf of theprotected tenant, represented by Mandala Ramulamma, wife of MandalaYettaiah[3] was dismissed. The resultant effect of such order of the HighCourt was that the occupancy rights granted to the purchaser stoodannulled.

G

1 For short, the ‘Inams Act’

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘purchaser’

3 For short, the ‘protected tenant’

H

A2. Now, the purchaser seeks restoration of the occupancy rightsgranted in their favor on 19.2.1982 in the present appeals. On the otherhand, the protected tenant claims such rights on the strength of certificategranted to Mandala Yettaiah on 20.3.1975 under Section 38-E of theAndhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,B1950[4].

A

3. It is not in dispute that one Mandala Lakshmaiah was theprotected tenant over the land measuring 19 acres and 16 guntas bearingSurvey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 in Village Jeedimetla, District Hyderabad.The tenancy rights were said to be surrendered orally in favor of ShriThota Balakrishna Reddy in the year 1954. The original Inamdar JayaramCRao and Venkateshwar Rao executed sale deed of the land measuring19 acres and 16 guntas on 5.7.1957 in favor of the purchaser- Shri ThotaBalakrishna Reddy. On the same day, the protected tenant has alsopurportedly sold the tenancy rights in favor of the purchaser.

4. The purchaser applied for occupancy rights certificate underDthe Inams Act in the year 1975. Such certificate was granted to him on19.2.1982 in view of the occupation and possession of the land by thepurchaser. On the other hand, the protected tenant was conferredownership rights when the certificate of ownership under Section 38-Eof the Tenancy Act was issued on 20.3.1975. The certificate of ownershipEgranted to protected tenant reads thus:

“CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP UNDER SECTION 38-EOF THE ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA)TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT 1950

Whereas Sri Yettaiah is the protected tenant of the landFspecified below belonging to the land holder Sri M. VenkateswarRao, S/o Nanatha Rao.

And whereas by virtue of Govt. Notification No. G.O.Ms. No.3, Revenue (G) dated 1[st] January, 1973 issued underSection 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) TenancyGand Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the ownership of the said landstands transferred to the said Sri Yettaiah.

It is hereby declared that the said tenancy Sri Yettaiah shallbe deemed to be owner of the said land with effect from 1[st] January, H4 For short, the ‘Tenancy Act’

1973 as against the land holder and all other persons having anyAinterest therein.

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

B

C

’’

5. The purchaser had the protected tenancy rights firstly by thealleged oral surrender in the year 1954 and secondly, by transfer oftenancy rights vide a registered document on 5.7.1957 and later thefactum of withdrawing of an appeal by the protected tenant on 14.2.1989against the grant of occupancy rights certificate to the purchaser. Thepurchaser also relies upon an order passed by the Mandal RevenueOfficer, Gutubullapur Mandal on 31.1.1989 in a petition under Section19 of the Tenancy Act recognizing the surrender of protected tenancyrights by the protected tenant on the basis of an affidavit allegedly filedby him on 24.1.1989 to withdraw the appeal against the grant ofoccupancy rights to the purchaser. Though the order of withdrawal ofappeal was passed on 14.2.1989, but Section 19 petition was dismissedon 31.1.1989.

6. Civil Appeal Nos. 2508-2509 of 2021 by way of Special LeavePetitions were filed by the persons who have purchased plots, amongstother persons, in the colony known as Meenakshi Estates, developed onthe land admeasuring 9 acres 16 guntas. In the said appeals, the legalheirs of successors-in-interest of the protected tenant gave up their claimover the land in question and confined their claim to the remaining landexcluding the land measuring 9 acres 16 guntas. Thus, the issue in thepresent appeals is in respect of the residual 10 acres of land.

DE

F

G

H

DE

F

G

H

A7. In view of this factual background, the question required to beexamined herein is as to whether the stand of the purchaser that theprotected tenant had surrendered the tenancy rights orally and whichwas later on accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.1.1989 islegal and valid and not in contravention of the provisions of the TenancyAct. The ancillary question would be whether the purchaser could claimBoccupancy rights on 19.2.1982 when the ownership rights weretransferred in favor of the protected tenant on 20.3.1975. It is also to beascertained whether there was any transferrable interest in the propertywhich could be granted to the purchaser in 1982. Such contentions arerequired to be assessed in the light of the statutory provisions of theCTenancy Act and Inams Act which read as thus:

“TENANCY ACT

2(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subjector context:- Dxxxxxxxxx (r) “Protected tenant” means a person who is deemed to be aprotected tenant under the provisions of this Act; (Substituted by AP Act No. 15 of 1971 for “Protected” means aperson who is deemed to be protected tenant under the provisionsEof this Act)

xxxxxxxxx

(v) “Tenant” means an asami shikmi who holds land on lease andincludes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under theFprovisions of this Act; xxxxxxxxx CHAPTER III

Tenant

G

19. (1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree ororder of a Court of law, but subject to the provisions of sub-section(3), no tenancy of land shall be terminated before the expirationof the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leasedotherwise than,- H

(a) by the tenant by surrender of his rights to the landholder atleast a month before the commencement of the year.

Provided that such surrender is made by the tenant in writingand is admitted by him before and is made in good faith to thesatisfaction of the Tahsildar; or Provided further that where the land is cultivated jointly byjoint tenants or members of an undivided Hindu Family, unless thesurrender is made by all of them, it shall be ineffective in respectof such joint tenants as have not joined in the application forsurrender, irrespective of the fact that the names of all the jointtenants are not mentioned in the certificate; (b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section (2).

xxxxxx

xxx

CHAPTER IV

Protected Tenant

34. (1) A person shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2)and (3), be deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of land ifhe- (a) has held such land as a tenant continuously, -

(i) for a period of not less than six years, being a period whollyincluded in the Fasil years 1342 and 1352 (both years inclusive),or

(ii) for a period of not less than six years immediately precedingthe 1[st] day of January, 1948, or

(iii) for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlierthan the 1[st] day of the Fasil year 1353 (6[th] October, 1943), andcompleted before the commencement of this Act, and xxx xxxxxx

(3) A person who at the commencement of this Act is no longer inpossession of land in respect of which he is deemed under sub-section (1) to be a protected tenant shall, notwithstanding anythingcontained in that sub-section, not be deemed to be a protectedtenant in respect of such land if- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(a) he was evicted from such land in pursuance of a decree ororder of a competent Court, or (b) such land is being cultivated personally by the land-holder, or

(c) a permanent structure has been built by the land-holder onsuch land, or (d) such land has been permanently diverted by the land-holderto non-agricultural uses.

Explanation.- In sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section and insections 35, 36 and 37 references to a person include referencesto such two or more persons as are referred to in Explanation IIIto sub-section (1).”

*38-E. (1) Notwithstanding anything is this Chapter or any lawfor the time being in force or any custom, usage, judgment, decree,contract or grant to the contrary, the Government may, bynotification in the Telangana Gazette, declare in respect of anyarea and from such date as may be specified therein, that ownershipof all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled topurchase from their land-holders in such area under any provisionof this Chapter shall, subject to the condition laid down in sub-section (7) of section 38, stand transferred to and vest in theprotected tenants holding them and from such date the protectedtenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands:

Provided that where in respect of any such land, anyproceeding under section 19 or section 32 or section 44 is pendingon the date so notified, the transfer of ownership of such landshall take effect on the date, on which such proceeding is finallydecided, and when the tenant retains possession of the land inaccordance with the decision in such proceeding.

Explanation:- If a protected tenant, on account of his beingdispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of theTahsildar as provided in section 32, is not in possession of the landon the date of the notification issued hereunder, then for thepurposes of this sub-section, such protected tenant shall,notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, orthe order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal or other authority, be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of thenotification; and accordingly, the Tahsildar shall notwithstandinganything contained in the said section 32, either suo motu or onthe application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry,and direct that such land in possession of the landholder or anyperson claiming through or under him in that area, shall be takenfrom the possession of the landholder or such person, as the casemay be, and shall be restored to the protected tenant and theprovisions of this section shall apply thereto in every respect as ifthe protected tenant had held the land on the date of suchnotification.

(2) A certificate in the prescribed form declaring him to be ownershall be issued by the Tribunal after holding such enquiry as maybe prescribed, to every such protected tenant and notice of suchissue shall simultaneously be issued to the landholder. Suchcertificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenanthaving become the owner of the land with effect from the date ofthe certificate as against the landholder and all other persons havingany interest therein:

Provided that where the land, the ownership of which hasbeen transferred to the protected tenant under sub-section (1), isin the occupation of a person other than the protected tenant orholder of the certificate issued under this sub-section, it shall belawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said landto the protected tenant or holder of the certificate, after givingnotice of eviction to the occupant thereof, in the prescribed manner.

(3) Within ninety days from the date of notice of issue of thecertificate under sub-section (2), every land-holder of landssituated in the area specified in the notification under sub-section(1), shall file an application before the Tribunal for the determinationof the reasonable price of his interest in the land which has beentransferred to the ownership of a protected tenant under sub-section (1), and if an application is not so filed within such periodby the landholder, the Tribunal may suo-motu proceed to determinesuch price and thereupon all the provisions of sub-section (4) to(8) of section 38 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such application:

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Provided that if the protected tenant commits default inrespect of any instalment, it shall be recovered by the Governmentas arrears of land revenue and paid to the landholder:

A

Provided further that if the whole or any part of the pricedue to the landholder cannot be recovered as arrears of landrevenue the transfer shall not be effective and the amount, if any,already paid by the protected tenant towards the price shall berefunded to him together with interest at three percent per annumand the land revenue paid by him, if any, after deducting therefromthe rent for the period.

B

C

(4) The Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to theprovisions of this section, by rules, make such supplemental,incidental and consequential provisions as they may deemnecessary, such as the procedure for making inquiry to ascertainthe extent of the holding of the tenant as on the notified date andthe extent of the land which is to be deemed to have beentransferred to and vested in the protected tenants.

D

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or section19, the Collector may, suo-motu at any time, hold an enquiry witha view to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of the rightmade by the protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1)of section 19, for the purpose of effecting the transfer of ownershipunder this section, and pass such order in relation thereto as hemay think fit.

E

Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shallbe passed under this sub-section unless such person has had anFopportunity of making his representation thereto.

•Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954. Inserted clausereads as under:- “38-E (1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter or any lawfor the time being in force or any custom, usage, decree,contract or grant to the contrary the Government may, bynotification in the Jarida, declare in respect of any area andfrom such date as may be specified therein that ownership ofall lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled topurchase from their land-holders in such area under any G

H

provision of this chapter shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Act stand transferred to andvest in the protected tenants holding them and from such datethe protected tenant shall be deemed to be the full owner ofsuch lands.”

The said provision was Substituted by AP Act No. 15 of1971, as extracted above.

xxxxxxxxx

Statutes

44. **[(1)Subject the provisions of sub-section (8) a landholderwho, on the date on which the Hyderabad Tenancy andAgricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1954 comes into force, isnot already cultivating personally an area to three times the familyholding for the local area concerned and who in good faith requiresland leased out to a protected tenant for cultivating personallymay, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19 of the Act,terminate the tenancy and resume such land or portion of suchland that would, together with the land which he is alreadycultivating personally, either as owner or protected tenant, be equalto three times the family holding, by making an application in themanner prescribed to the Collector or any other officer whom theGovernment may from time to time authorise in this behalf.

***[Provided that after the commencement of theHyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,1955, no such landholder shall be entitled to exercise the right ofresumption under this sub-section unless he has within a period ofeighteen months from the commencement of the said Act filedwith the Deputy Collector, in the prescribed manner, a statementof reservation demarcating the lands which he reserves for theexercise of the rights or resumption under this section. On suchstatement being filed, the Deputy Collector shall, as soon as maybe, after making necessary enquiry, issue a certificate to thelandholder in the prescribed manner to the effect that the landshave been so reserved. The right to terminate tenancy shall beexercisable only in respect of the lands specified in the certificateas so reserved and shall not extend to any other land.]

** Substituted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954.

A

BC

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

*** Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1956

(2) The landholder’s right to terminate tenancy of any protectedtenant under sub-section (1) shall be limited to an area whichshall after such termination, leave with the protected tenant anarea, which together with the land owned by him or cultivated byhim as a protected tenant, is equal to a basic holding for the localarea concerned:

Provided that, where by such resumption the land that willbe left with protected tenant together with other land owned orcultivated by him will be less than a basic holding, the landholder’sright of terminating the tenancy, shall be limited to half the area ofland leased out by him to the said protected tenant:

Provided further, that where the land owned by a landholderdoes not exceed a basic holding he will be entitled to resume theentire land leased by him.]

46. If at any time the tenant makes an application to the Tahsildarand satisfies him that the landholder has failed to comply within areasonable time with the provisions of Section 45, the protectedtenant shall be entitled on a direction by the Tahsildar to obtainimmediate possession of the land to such compensation as maybe awarded by the Tahsildar for any loss caused to the tenant byhis eviction and by the failure of the landholder to restore or givepossession of the land to him as required by the said section.

47. (Omitted by AP Act No.12 of 1969)

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for thetime being in force or in any decree or order of a Court, nopermanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural landshall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanctionof, #[or in the case of a disposition by will] has been confirmedby, the Taluqdar.

##[Provided that the Collector may declare a permanentalienation or any other transfer of agricultural land to be valid ifthe permanent alienation or transfer took place before thecommencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Amendment) Act, 1954 and possession of the land transferred was given to the vendee before such commencement if applicationfor sanction is made within one year after such commencement].

Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954

(2) Applications for such previous sanction #[or confirmation] shallbe made and disposed of in accordance with such procedure asmay be prescribed.

Deleted by Hyderabad Act No. XXIII of 1951

INAMS ACT

1. (1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh (TelanganaArea) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

(2) It extends to the whole of the Telangana area of the State ofAndhra Pradesh and shall apply to all inams as defined in clause(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2.

(3) (a) This section, Section 2, Section 3 except clauses (d), (g),(h) and (i) of sub-section (2), sections 30 to 34 (both inclusive),Section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made forthe purposes of the aforesaid sections, Section 36 and Section 37,shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in theOfficial Gazette; (b) the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as theGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appointin this behalf.

2. (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subjector context- xxx xxxxxx

(c) ‘inam’ means land held under a gift or a grant made by theNizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competentgrantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab orother title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupledwith the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereonand entered as such in the village records and includes-

(i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered asinam in the village records:

Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas, the expressioninam shall not include such lands as have not been recognised asinams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs.

xxx

xxx

xxx

(j) ‘protected tenant’ means the protected tenant as defined in theTelangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

xxx

xxx

xxx

3. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in anyusage, settlement, contract, grant, sanad, order or other instrument,Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law andnotwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenueor Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all inamsshall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State.

(2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of thisAct and with effect from the date of vesting, the followingconsequences shall ensue, namely:- (a) the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Faslirelating to inams, and the provisions of the Telangana AtiyatEnquiries Act, 1952 and other enactments, rules, regulations andcirculars in force in respect of Atiyat grants shall, to the extent,they are repugnant, to the provisions of this Act, not apply and theprovisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, relatingto unalienated lands for purposes of land revenue, shall apply tothe said inams;

(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protectedtenant in respect of the inam land, other than the interest expresslysaved by or under provisions of this Act and including those in allcommunal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands (whetherassessed or not), waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines andminerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in theState free from all encumbrances.

A

xxxxxxxxx

(h) the relationship with regard to inam land as between theinamdaar and kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenantor non-protected tenant shall be extinguished; B

xxxxxxxxx

4. (1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting,be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands otherthan- C

(a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands; wastelands, forest lands, mines and quarries; tanks, tank beds andirrigation works, streams and rivers; (b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registeredDunder Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act;

(c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by anyperson other than the inamdar; which immediately before the date of vesting, were under hispersonal cultivation and which, together with any lands heseparately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and ahalf times the ‘family holding’.

E

xxx

xxxxxx

7. (1) Every protected tenant shall, with effect from the date ofvesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such inamlands in his possession as may be left over after the allotmentunder section 4, which were under his personal cultivation andwhich, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivatespersonally, are equal to four and a half times the ‘family holding’.

F

G

(2) The protected tenant shall be entitled to compensation fromthe Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inamlands in his possession in excess of the limit specified in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not:

H

AProvided that-

(a) he continued to be a tenant of such inam lands until thedate of vesting; or (b) if he is not in possession, he has been unlawfullydispossessed of such lands by the inamdar between the 10[th] ofJune, 1950 and the date of vesting.

B

(3) No protected tenant shall be entitled to be registered as anoccupant under sub-section (1) unless he pays to the Governmentas premium an amount equal to forty times the land revenue fordry land and thirteen times for wet land. The amount of premiumshall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments alongwith the annual land revenue and in default of such payment shallbe recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respectof which it is payable.

C

Provided that the protected tenant who is a poor personshall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under sub-section(1), without payment of any premium to the Government.

D

xxxxxxxxx

E

F

G

H

10. Collector shall examine the nature and history of all lands inrespect of which an Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant,protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims to be registeredas an occupant under sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as the case may be,and decide- (a) in whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands, theclaims should be allowed; (b) the land revenue and the premium payable in respect ofsuch lands.

xxxxxxxxx

33. Nothing in this Act shall in any way be deemed to affect theapplication of the provisions of the Telangana Tenancy andAgricultural Lands Act, 1950 to any inam or the mutual rights andobligations of an Inamdar and his tenants, save in so far as the said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the expressprovisions of this Act.”

8. Sections 1, 2, 3 except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section (2), Sections 30 to 34, Section 35, Sections 36 and 37 had comeinto force on the date of publication of the Inams Act in the OfficialGazette on 20.7.1955 in terms of Section 1(3)(a) of the Inams Act. Theother provisions of the Inams Act including Section 3(2) (d), (g), (h) and(i) came into force w.e.f. 1.11.1973.

9. In terms of Section 34 of the Tenancy Act, a person is deemedto be a protected tenant in respect of any land of which he is not in thepossession at the time of commencement of the Act. He can seek torecover possession, if he intimates to the landholder within six months ofthe said commencement that he is willing to hold the land on the termsand conditions on which he held it before he lost possession thereof asper Section 36. Still further, Section 38 starts with non obstante clausecontemplating that a protected tenant shall at any time after thecommencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Amendment) Act, 1954, be entitled to purchase the land-holder’s interestin the land held by the former as a protected tenant. It may be mentionedthat if in respect of a land held by a protected tenant, the landlord concernedintends to relinquish his interest in the land without receiving anyconsideration, the Tribunal shall issue to such protected tenant a certificateas provided in sub-section (6) of Section 38 (See Section 38-B). Further,in terms of Section 38-D, if the landlord at any time intends to sell theland held by the protected tenant, he shall give a notice in writing of hisintention to such protected tenant and offer to sell the land to him. Theprotected tenant is to convey his intention to purchase the land within sixmonths from the date of receipt of such notice.

10. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellantinter alia submitted that an appeal against the grant of occupancy rightson 09.02.1982 was filed on 18.03.1987 by the protected tenant. Suchappeal was beyond the period of 30 days provided to file an appeal. Thesaid appeal was later withdrawn on 14.02.1989. Reliance has been placedupon a judgment of this Court reported as Boddam Narsimha v. HasanAli Khan & Ors,[5] wherein this Court held that the benefit of section 38- 5 (2007) 11 SCC 410

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AE is to be given to persons holding the lands as protected tenants andwho continue to hold the lands as such on 1.1.1973.

11. It was further argued that the purchasers had purchased Inamland, governed by the Inams Act. It was also contended that the rightsof the protected tenant under the Tenancy Act are subject to provisionsBof the Inams Act by virtue of Section 33 of the said Act relying on thejudgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Rangaiah and Ors. v.Collector Medak & Ors.[6]. It was also argued that Inams Act recognizesthe right of Inamdar and protected tenant to sell/ alienate their right andinterest in the land. The reliance was on the judgments reported asS. Veera Reddy v. Chetlapalli Chandaiaha[7] and BhimavarapuCVenkaiah & Anr. v. RDO[8], S. Narsasimha and Ors. v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District[9]. It was thus contended that the bar underSection 30 restricting sub-division or sub-letting and alienation in termsof now Section 47 (since repealed) of the Tenancy Act are not applicablein view of the Inams Act.

D

12. A reference was also made to affidavits filed by Yettaiah, sonof the principal protected tenant as well as by the wife of the protectedtenant, admitting sale of land to the purchaser in 1957. Thus, the argumentwas that the certificate of occupancy right was issued on 19.02.1982upon due enquiry and after hearing the heirs of the original protectedEtenant.

13. Mr. Dave relied upon an appeal filed against the grant ofoccupancy rights before the Mandal Revenue Officer wherein statementsof the parties and the compromise arrived at by them were recorded.This appeal was later withdrawn on 14.02.1989 by the protected tenant.F

14. Further, an application filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer,Qutubullapur, Medchal District under Section 32 of the Tenancy Actseeking restoration of possession was referred to but it was contendedthat the pendency of such application was not disclosed by therespondents in proceedings before the High Court. Thus, the RespondentGNos. 3 to 10 are seriously guilty of suppression of relevant facts.

6 1996 SCC Online AP 275

7 1994 SCC Online AP 510

8 (1999) SCC Online AP 896

9 2006 SCC Online AP 57H

Reference has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported asJai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf[10].

15. Mr. V. Giri, learned counsel in another appeal submitted thatthree generations of the protected tenant participated in transactionsgranting occupancy rights to the family members of the purchaser inrespect of the subject property. It was argued that the initial appealagainst the grant of occupancy rights certificate was withdrawn by theprotected tenant. Thereafter, the later appeal against such grant wouldbe barred ab initio as the same was filed after an inordinate delay of 36years. Hence, it was argued that the compromise in judicial proceedingsought to be given utmost sanctity, asserting the compromise arrived atby the parties in 1989 which led to the withdrawal of appeal.

16. It was further argued that the contention of the protectedtenant that they became aware of occupancy rights certificate in theyear 2015 was a clear moonshine defense and that the delay of 33 yearsby them per se defeats the proprietorial claim against subject property.Reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court in Ravinder KaurGrewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors[11]inter-alia to contend that theappellants are in possession since the date of purchase, therefore, theyhave perfected their possession into title. Another order passed by thisCourt in Civil Appeal Nos. 4367-4372 of 2016 titled as Jagadish v.State of Karnataka decided on 29.08.2019 was referred wherein it hasbeen held that even though there is no period of limitation prescribedunder Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibitionof Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, but such right is required to beexercised within reasonable time. Similar view has been taken by theDivision Bench of the High Court in Vorla Ramachandra Reddy &Anr. v. Joint Collector I & Ors.[12], wherein the reliance is placed uponthe judgment of this Court reported as Ponnala Narasing Rao v. NallollaPantaiah[13]. It was thus argued that the challenge to the grant ofoccupancy certificate had not been made within reasonable time, thusthe High Court had erred in law to interfere to dispute the legality of theoccupation rights certificate after gross delay and inaction on part of therespondents.

10 (2006) 7 SCC 756

11 (2019) SCC Online SC 975

12 2021 SCC OnLine TS 703

13 (1998) 9 SCC 183

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A 17. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon SingleBench judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as JupudiBhushanam v. Joint Collector, Khammam and Ors.[14], KasaMuthanna and Another v. Sunke Rajanna and 11 Ors.[15] It was arguedthat the reliance placed by the High Court on the judgment in Sada v.The Tahsildar[16] is misconceived as in that case, the violation of periodBof limitation prescribed under Section 24 was not the question, nor theinterplay between the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act was examinedtherein. Even the judgment of this Court in B. Bal Reddy v. TeegalaNarayana Reddy[17] would not be applicable in the facts of the presentcase.C18. It was hence contended that the Joint Collector in its orderdated 4.12.2017 has rightly held that Section 38-E Certificate was grantedin favor of the protected tenant under a misconception because of originaluncorrected protected tenancy register. Still further, the Certificate underSection 38-E should be followed by a payment of compensation to theDland owner. Since no compensation has been paid, the final vesting doesnot take place. Furthermore, the conduct of protected tenant prior toand subsequent to Section 38-E Certificate demonstrates that suchcertificate never attained legal finality in light of the due legal procedure.

19. It was averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the purchaserEwas in possession on 01.11.1973 which entitled him to occupancy rightsunder the Inams Act. The name of predecessor-in-interest was alsorecorded in the order of 1982 by the Revenue Divisional Officer and theJoint Collector who passed the order in 2017.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Fprotected tenants submitted that the primary objection of the purchaserwas firstly, settlement and consequent withdrawal of the appeal by theprotected tenants in the year 1989 and secondly, delay in filing of theappeal in the year 2015. It was argued that the Tenancy Act and InamsAct are based upon the principle that tiller of the land shall be the owner.The provisions of the Tenancy Act are intended to secure the interestsGof the tenants and insulate them from relinquishing their rights directly orindirectly. The freedom of the protected tenant to relinquish his tenancy 14 1996 SCC OnLine AP 94115 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 59216 (1987) 2 APLJ 397H17 (2016) 15 SCC 102

rights are restricted by the statute as such surrender can be only withthe permission of the Competent Authority. In the present case, thepurchaser has placed reliance upon an oral surrender of tenancy rightsin the year 1954 and subsequent sale thereof in the year 1957. Thesetwo actions are prohibited in law as the surrender has to be in writingand is to be admitted by the tenant in good faith subject to the satisfactionof the Tehsildar in terms of Section 38-E(5) read with Section 19(1)(a)of the Tenancy Act. Both the instances of surrender of tenancy rightsorally in 1954 and in writing in 1957, contravenes the statutory protectiongranted to the protected tenant. The Tenancy Act has been enacted toprotect the tenants from exploitation of the land owners, therefore, theinterpretation which advances the purpose of the statute should beaccepted. The statute has prescribed a mode of surrender of tenancyand such mode alone could be resorted to before the surrender is made.The subsequent proceedings were to justify the surrender of allegedtenancy rights. The reliance is placed upon Kotaiah & Anr. v. PropertyAssociation of the Baptist Churches(P) Ltd.[18], Edukanti Kistamma(Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs& Ors.[19]and B. Bal Reddy.

21. On merits, it was argued that the purchasers had not disclosedthe factum of the appeal being filed before the Joint Collector or beforethe High Court. In fact, the protected tenants had no knowledge of theappeal being filed and withdrawn. The filing and withdrawal of the appealis surrounded by suspicious circumstances so as to justify the grant ofOccupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers. The order of grantingoccupancy rights was passed on 19.2.1982 after issuance of certificateunder Section 38-E. Once ownership rights had been granted underSection 38-E, the same cannot be disputed except in the mannercontemplated by law. There was no question of granting occupancyrights to the purchasers as the land is deemed to be transferred to theprotected tenant as the owner and that there was no interest or title inthe disputed land which could be claimed by the purchasers once theownership is granted to the protected tenant. Section 33 of the InamsAct specifically provides that the Inams Act will not affect the TenancyAct and the provisions of the Tenancy Act, particularly Section 38-E (1)and Sub-Section 5 read with Section 19 have been given overriding effect 18 (1989) 3 SCC 42419 (2010) 1 SCC 756

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aafter the enactment of Inams Act. Thus, such provisions would prevailover the Inams Act. Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act substituted inthe year 1971 had given overriding effect to Chapter IV over any otherlaw which would also include the Inams Act.

22. The argument that the protected tenant has not deposited theBsale consideration payable to the land owner is inconsequential as it island owner who had to apply for compensation by way of an applicationto the Tribunal in terms of Section 38-E (3) of the Tenancy Act. Inaddition, the payment of sale consideration was the responsibility to beexercised by the Collector in terms of Section 38-E read with Section 38sub-sections (4) to (8) of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, failure of the landCowner or the Revenue Authorities to assess the compensation payableby the protected tenant would not defeat his rights by virtue of beingdeclared as an owner on the strength of a statute. It was also arguedthat the land owner could not affect sale of his interest in the land whichis in possession of the protected tenant without giving an opportunity toDthe protected tenant to purchase such land. The ownership rights weretransferred in favor of the purchasers in the year 1957 but no opportunitywas granted to the protected tenant to purchase land. Therefore, in termsof Section 38-D, the sale itself in favor of the purchasers is in violationof the prohibition contained in Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act.

E23. It was further submitted that the Ownership Certificate issuedunder Section 38-E has not been challenged by any person before anyauthority. Therefore, the transfer of ownership is complete in respect ofthe protected tenant. At best, the land owner could claim the unpaid,undetermined sale price from the protected tenant but the transfer ofownership rights shall be absolute. Reliance has been placed uponFjudgment of this Court in Edukanti Kistamma and judgment of theHigh Court reported as Sada.

24. It was contended that Occupancy Rights Certificate was issuedto the purchasers without any notice to the protected tenant. Suchcertificate would be null and void after the ownership rights wereGconferred to the protected tenant. The affidavits of Mandala Yettaiahand Govaramma in 1979 relinquishing the rights are undated, unsignedand in any case ineffective as there was no permission obtained by theTehsildar for surrender of the tenancy rights under Section 38-E (5)read with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the knowledge of H

grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers cannot beattributed to the respondents and thus could be disputed in the year 2015when the information about such Certificate came to the notice of someof the protected tenants. It was an assertion of the title by the protectedtenant on the basis of certificate granted under Section 38-E of theTenancy Act. Thus, the Occupancy Rights Certificate obtained by thepurchasers was in nullity, void ab initio and without jurisdiction.

25. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and find nomerit in the present appeals. Before we examine the facts of the case,some principles of law need to be stated.

26. In Sada, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Courtexamined various aspects of the Tenancy Act by framing 9 points forconsideration by giving complete legislative history of the Tenancy Act.The High Court held on the point Nos. 2 and 4 relevant for the purposeof the preset appeal as under:

“(1) What is the meaning of the words ‘lands held by protectedtenants’ and whether a protected tenant must have been in physicalpossession on the date of notification issued by the Governmentunder Section 38E(1) of the Act (in this batch 1-1-1973) forbecoming owner of the property and for obtaining the ownershipcertificate?

4) Whether the new proviso to Section 38E(2) added by Act 2 of1979 is retrospective and permits restoration of possession wherethe ownership certificate has been issued before 11-1-1979 thedate when Act 2 of 1979 has come into force?

“27. In our view, the contention for the landholders that unless theprotected tenant is in physical possession on the date of notificationissued, under Section 38-E(1), he cannot get the ownership rights,is not tenable. A plain regarding of S. 38-E (1) shows that theGovernment may, by notification in the gazette declare is respectof any area, that from which such date as may be specified therein,ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they areentitled to purchase from their landholders in such area shall, subjectto Sec. 38(7), stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenantholding them. It is important to note that the statute does not say‘held on the date specified in such notification’. Wherever the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Legislature wanted that land should have been held on any specifieddate, it had clearly specified in that Act…

xx

xx

xx

29. It is clear from S. 38-E that it is for these protected tenantswho are finally declared to be protected tenants’ and included inthe Register prepared for that purpose end for whom protectedtenancy certificates have been issued, that ownership rights areenvisaged. In S. 33-E(1), subject of course, to the limitation withregard to extent of holdings as specified in S. 38(7) and to theproviso to S. 38-E(1). Once persons who held land on the datesor for the periods mentioned in S. 34. 37 and 37-A and therequirement of physical possession on the dates required in thosesections is satisfied, such persons have become protected tenants’.Once a person becomes a protected tenant, he earns a qualificationto become an owner by force of statute, subject of course to thequalification regarding extent in S. 38(7) and to the proviso to S.38-E(1). There is no requirement in the Act that he should also bein possession on the date specified in the notification issued in S.38-E(1). The words ‘all lands held by protected tenants’ is more adescription of the lands with regard to which the right as ‘protectedtenant’ has been declared and there are no words requiring physicalpossession on the date specified in the notification.

xxxx

xx

31. A person ‘holds’ the land as protected tenant if he is stiff a‘protected tenant’ on the notified date, though out of possession. Aslong as his right as protected tenant has not been determinedby date of notification in a manner known 10 the Act, he‘holds’ the land ax protected tenant, whether physically inpossession or not We shall explain this again under point 7 in thecontext of surrender”.

xx

xxxx

36. For all the aforesaid reasons we hold on Point No. 1 that fortie vesting of the ownership of land ‘held’ by a protected tenantunder S. 38-E(1), it is not necessary that the protected tenantshould have been in physical possession on the date of notification,it is sufficient if he continued to hold the status of a ‘protected tenant’ as on the notified date even if not in physical possessionand he satisfied the requirements of S. 32(7) of the Act. This isalso subject to the proviso to Section 38-E(1).

xx

xx

xx

55. Point No. 4 The point is whether the new proviso to S. 38-E(2) added by Act 2 of 1979 is retrospective and permits restorationof possession Where ownership the certificate is issued before11-1-1979 when Act 2/79 has come into force.

56. Now the new proviso to S. 38-E(2) was introduced by Act 2/1979 to get round the difficulty created by the judgmentin Narsaiah’s case (1), There, it was held, that once the protectedtenant has become owner, there is no machinery in the Act enablinghim to obtain possession. It was pointed out that the provision inthe latter part of the Explanation to S. 38 E (1) enabling a ‘protectedtenant’ to obtain possession through the Tahsildar was notapplicable to the case of an application by an owner, even if it bea case of a protected tenant becoming an owner.

57. In our view, the Legislature wanted to fill up the difficultycreated by Narsaiah’s case when it added the new proviso to S.38-E(2) enabling the Tahsildar to restore possession to a formerprotected tenant who had become the owner.

xx

xx

59. It is then argued that the words “the ownership has beentransferred” in the new proviso to S. 38-E(2) show that theamendment does not apply to cases where the ownership certificatehas been issued before 11-1-1979. This interpretation is not correct.We fully endorse the reasons given in Chennaiah’s case to saythat these words cannot be given such a restricted meaning. PointNo. 4 is decided accordingly.

xx

xxxx

66. For purposes of S. 38-E(1) the protected tenant should nothave validly surrendered his tenancy right by the date of notificationunder S. 38-E(1). But if he had voluntarily surrendered his rightsprior to 4-2-1954 (the date of the 1954 amendment) and put thelandholder in possession, be it without the intervention of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ATahsildar, he could not claim any rights of ownership under S. 38-E(1) upon the issue of the notification. Likewise, if the surrenderwas after 4-2-1954 and before the date of notification under S.38-E(1) and such surrender satisfied the requirements of Sec. 19and was a valid surrender, the protected tenant could not claimownership rights. If however there was no valid surrender, whetherBbefore (being not voluntarily but forcible), or after (being not inconformity with S. 19), the protected tenant had a right to be putback in possession under S. 32 as stated in Venkanna v. Buchamma(12) and such protected tenants, (if they had not otherwise losttheir status under Ss. 32 or 44 by the notified date) would beCentitled to ownership rights under S. 38E(1) and would be entitledto the ownership certificate under S. 38-E(2). In cases whereproceedings under S. 19 are pending on the date of notificationand end in favour of the protected tenant thereafter, the date ofvesting gets postponed till the said decision. Point No. 7 is decidedaccordingly.”D

27. In Kotaiah, this Court held that the protected tenant cannotbe dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. Section 38-Dprohibits the land holder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties.Even if the land holder intends to sell the tenanted land, he must give anotice in writing of such intention to the protected tenant. It was concludedEas under:

“22. In sum...,

(i) The protected tenant has a right to become full owner of thelands in his possession. He becomes the owner when theGovernment issues a notification under Section 38-E. We are toldFthat the Government had issued such a notification on 1-10-1973,relating to the district where the lands in question are situated. Itwas about three years earlier to termination of the appellants’tenancy by the Association. If the appellants had a right to becomeowners of the tenanted lands, the question of terminating theirGtenancy would not arise.

(ii) The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by thelandlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, the Tehsildar eithersuo motu or on application must hold a summary enquiry, anddirect that the land be restored to the protected tenant. That is theHmandate of Section 38-E and the Explanation thereof.

(iii) The landholder by himself cannot dispossess the protectedtenant even if the tenancy is terminated in accordance with thelaw. The landlord will have to take recourse to Section 32. Hemust approach the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry and pass suchorder as he deems fit.

(iv) Section 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating thetenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell theland, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protectedtenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It isonly when the protected tenant does not exercise the right topurchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. Thealienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legaleffect.”

28. In Edukanti Kistamma, the appellants were the protectedtenants and were issued ownership certificate under Section 38-E of theTenancy Act. The stand of the respondents of surrender of the tenancyrights was found to be invalid. This Court in these circumstances heldthat it is not necessary that a protected tenant should also be in possessionon the date specified in the notification issued under Section 38-E of theTenancy Act. This Court relied upon the judgment in Kotaiah and heldas under:

“19. In view of the above, it is evident that the scheme of the Actprovides that a person who is a protected tenant has a right to getthe ownership in accordance with the statutory provisions, providedthe total area of the land owned by the landholder including theland under the cultivation of his tenants is more than three timesthe area of a family holding for the local area concerned. Theperson should be in lawful possession of the land on the date ofcommencement of the 1950 Act to claim benefits under the Act.The Government has to make a declaration by publishing thenotification in the gazette in respect of any area and from suchdate as may be specified therein, that the ownership of all landsheld by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase fromtheir landholders in such area under the Act, subject to theconditions laid down under Section 38(7) of the Act would standtransferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them assuch and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed tobe the full owners of such lands.

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

20. The certificate issued under Section 38-E(2) shall be conclusiveevidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of theland with effect from the date of the certificate, as against thelandholder and all other persons having any interest therein. Incase the protected tenant is not in possession of the land, he has aright to restoration of the possession of the said land through theTahsildar. The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegallyby the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, he has a rightto restoration of the possession. He can be dispossessed only bytaking recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 32 ofthe 1950 Act.

21. There is a complete embargo on the right of the landholder toalienate the tenanted land to a third party without giving an optionto the tenant to purchase the land. Section 47 of the 1950 Act(omitted by the amendment of 1969) provided that any transfer ofsuch land except to the protected tenant shall be void ab initio.The protected tenant may surrender his rights by strict adherenceto the statutory requirements under the 1950 Act. In case there isany deviation from any such requirement, it would render thesurrender ineffective and inconsequential.

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

26. The 1950 Act being the beneficial legislation requiresinterpretation to advance social and economic justice and enforcethe constitutional directives and not to deprive a person of hisright to property. The statutory provisions should not be construedin favour of such deprivation. Interpretation of a beneficiallegislation with a narrow pedantic approach is not justified. Incase there is any doubt, the court should interpret a beneficiallegislation in favour of the beneficiaries and not otherwise as itwould be against the legislative intent. For the purpose ofinterpretation of a statute, the Act is to be read in its entirety. Thepurport and object of the Act must be given its full effect byapplying the principles of purposive construction. The court mustbe strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute’sutility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as tomake it effective and operative and to further the ends of justiceand not to frustrate the same. The court has the duty to construe the statute to promote the object of the statute and serve thepurpose for which it has been enacted and should not efface itsvery purpose.

xxx

xxxxxx

41. There can be no doubt that once a protected tenant gets acertificate of ownership under Section 38-E(2) of the 1950 Act,he has a right to apply for restoration of possession to him if hehas been dispossessed. The protected tenant has a right to askfor summary eviction of a trespasser.”

29. This Court in Boddam approved a Full Bench Judgment ofthe High Court in Sada. In Boddam, an application was filed claimingprotected tenancy under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act in the year1998. On 16.12.1998, for the first time, it was alleged that the appellantwas reflected as cultivating tenant in the Khasra Pahani for the year1954-1955 for three years. The sale deed was executed in his favor bythe owner on 23.11.1959 after permission was granted to his vendorunder Sections 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act. Bala, the paternal Uncleof the appellant had not claimed protected tenancy rights during hislifetime as he died in the year 1975. Even his legal representatives didnot claim protected tenancy. It was only in 1998 that protected tenancywas sought and the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of theTenancy Act was claimed after more than 40 years. This Court held asunder:

“13. …A person becomes a protected tenant when he is a holderon the dates or for the periods mentioned in Sections 35, 37 and37-A. Once a person becomes a protected tenant, he is entitled toan ownership certificate under Section 38-E. In Sada [AIR 1988AP 77 : (1987) 2 An LT 749 (FB)] the Full Bench of the AndhraPradesh High Court held that a person “holds” the land asprotected tenant if he is still a protected tenant on the notifieddate i.e. 1-1-1973, though out of possession. As long as his rightas protected tenant has not been determined by the date ofnotification in a manner known to the Act, he holds the land as aprotected tenant, whether physically in possession or not. For thevesting of ownership of land held by a protected tenant underSection 38-E, it is not necessary that the protected tenant shouldbe in physical possession on 1-1-1973. It is sufficient if A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahe continues to hold the status of a protected tenant on the notifieddate, even if he is not in physical possession. The Act does notmerely regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant but dealswith the alienation of agricultural land and includes transfer of thelandholder’s interest to the protected tenants. Therefore, the grantof pattedari (ownership rights) also finds place in the Act.”

B

30. This Court in Bal Reddy quoted with approval the Full Benchjudgment in Sada as well as the earlier judgment of this Court in Kotaiahto hold that protected tenancy could be terminated only in a mannerknown to law. In the absence of such valid termination of ‘protectedtenancy’, the interest of such protected tenant continues to be operativeCand subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs andrepresentatives who could then claim restoration of possession. As laiddown in Sada, even if the protected tenant had lost possession, withoutthere being valid termination of his status as a protected tenant, he wouldstill be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act.D

31. We shall now examine the respective contentions of the partiesin view of the law laid down and also the judgment of the High Court inSada which has stood the test of time for last more than 30 years. Thescheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act in respectof protected tenant is materially different from that of tenants governedEby Chapter III of the Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed atmuch higher pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possessionof the land, right has been given to him to seek possession later. Therefore,neither Section 19 nor Section 32 forming part of Chapter III of theTenancy Act are applicable in respect of protected tenant except whenthe reference is made to the provisions of Section 19 on the basis ofFSection 38-E(5) which starts with a non obstante clause giving overridingeffect to anything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates theCollector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the genuineness ofthe surrender of right made by the protected tenant. This exercise hadto be done before the surrender of tenancy rights and not subsequentlyGafter many years of alleged surrender on the strength of unequalbargaining power with the tenant who survives on the basis of agricultureactivities.

32. The purchasers relied upon an oral surrender of tenancy rightsin the year 1954 and later by a written document of 5.2.1957. TheHexecution of the document in the year 1957 unequivocally proves the factum of protected tenancy of the respondents herein. Such surrenderis contrary to Section 47 of the Tenancy Act prior to its omission by APAct No. 12 of 1969 and in contravention of Section 38-E(5) read withSection 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.

33. A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession in termsof Section 36 as well as Section 44 of the Tenancy Act which prohibitsthe termination of protected tenancy. The proviso to sub-section (1) ofSection 44 of the Tenancy Act puts complete embargo on a land holderto exercise the right of resumption unless he has within a period ofeighteen months from the commencement of the said Act soughtreservation of land to exercise his right or resumption in terms of thecommencement of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Amendment) Act, 1955. The Deputy Collector in terms of the saidprovision had to make a necessary enquiry and issue a certificate thatthe land has been so reserved. Thus, the land holder had no right toterminate the tenancy after the commencement of Amending Act, 1955except after an enquiry which was to be conducted by the DeputyCollector. No such reservation had been made nor any enquiry wasconducted, therefore, the rights of protected tenant cannot be defeated.

34. The purchasers have relied upon the oral surrender of protectedtenancy in the year 1954. Such surrender of oral tenancy of a protectedtenant is not permissible under the Tenancy Act except in the mannerwhich is prescribed under Section 38-E (5) read with Section 19 of theTenancy Act. Still further, the protected tenant has a right to seekpossession in terms of Section 36 of the Tenancy Act. Even in terms ofSection 38-D, if the land holder intends to sell the land which is inpossession of a protected tenant, he has to give a notice in writing of hisintention to such protected tenant.

35. Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificate ofownership under Section 38-E, the protected tenants shall be deemedto be the full owners of such land. Further, explanation provided underSection 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenant has been dispossessedotherwise than in the manner and by the order of the Tahsildar as providedin Section 32, then notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of anyCourt, or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal shall be deemedto be holding the land on the date of notification. The Tahsildar is underan obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of an application bythe protected tenant, to hold a summary enquiry and direct taking of land A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Ain possession of the land holder or any other person claiming through orunder him. The possession from a protected tenant can be taken only ifthe surrender of tenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer.The land owner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 ofthe Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within one year.Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancy rights byBprotected tenant and even if the tenancy is terminated, the land holder ispersonally liable to restore possession to the tenant, if he fails to cultivatethe land within one year of termination of tenancy.

36. Once a certificate of ownership is granted which is requiredto be published in the Government Gazette, the land stands transferredCand vested in the protected tenant as a full owner of such land. Suchcertificate is final subject to the rights of the landowner under the TenancyAct which is only to seek compensation.

37. The judgments referred to by the learned counsels for theappellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. S. RangaiahDwas a case of kabiz-e-kadim, which means an old occupier, who is neithera tenant nor a protected tenant. Such kabiz-e-kadim was grantedprotected tenancy status after the land got vested with the Governmenton 20.7.1955. The Bench noticed that even after vesting of Inam, aprotected tenant would continue to have tenancy rights and would haveEthe disability to enter into the agreement of sale on 22.1.1965 in favor ofthe respondents. The present matter is not a case of transfer of rights byor on behalf of the protected tenant. The entire argument is based uponthe fact of oral surrender and subsequent filing and withdrawal of appealin the year 1989 and of filing a belated appeal against the ownershipcertificate in the year 2015. The fact of filing of an appeal and itsFwithdrawal was not raised in the first instance by the purchasers inproceedings before the Joint Collector or before the High Court. Sincesuch documents were not produced at the earliest opportunity, and theveracity of such documents is not beyond doubt, there cannot be anyattribution of knowledge of the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate toGthe purchasers. It is strange that the appeal was withdrawn on 14.2.1989but Section 19 petition was dismissed on the basis of alleged withdrawalof appeal on 31.1.1989. The High Court has held that the interest of theprotected tenant cannot be validly conveyed in law in view of Section 30of the Tenancy Act.

38. In the present case, the surrender of tenancy rights is beforethe Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.1.1989, whereas as per the provisoto Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, a tenant can surrender his rightsat least a month before the commencement of the year and that surrenderis to be made by the tenant in writing. Such surrender is to be admittedby him before the Tehsildar and the authority is to satisfy itself thatsurrender is made in good faith. In the present case, the oral surrenderby the protected tenant is set up in the year 1954. Such surrender isfollowed by sale of tenancy rights in the year 1957. Thereafter, the petitionunder Section 19 of the Tenancy Act was filed to seek approval of theTenancy rights, such application was withdrawn on the basis of an orderwithdrawing the appeal against the grant of occupancy rights. This showsthat the purchasers have taken steps to procure surrender of tenancyrights, realizing that such surrender cannot be orally or by executing asale deed. It was a cover up operation initiated by the purchaser but thesame was still against the mandate of the statute as the finding of thesurrender has to be recorded by the Tehsildar. Since, neither the oralsurrender nor surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by theTehsildar, the subsequent surrender approved by the Mandal RevenueOfficer is a nullity and bears no legal effect as such surrender is incontravention of the statutory provisions. The protected tenant wasconferred ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act on23.3.1975 whereas the conferment of occupancy rights were granted inthe year 1982 under the Inams Act.

39. In S. Veera Reddy, the appellants were transferees of theprotected tenant who sought declaration. The appellants relied upon adocument dated 8.2.1963 by which the protected tenant was said tohave transferred possession in their favor. On the other hand, one Sattaiahclaimed possession after alleged surrender of tenancy rights by theprotected tenant. The appellants filed a suit claiming declaration of titleand perpetual injunction. It was also a case where plaintiffs anddefendants applied for occupancy rights under the Inams Act. In fact,Section 38-E came to be inserted in the year 1971 after the filing of thesuit by the appellants.

40. Bhimavarapu Venkaiah is a case of transfer of Inam landwherein occupancy rights were claimed and the matter was remitted tothe Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application of the firstpetitioner for the grant of occupancy rights. S. Narasimha was also a AB

C

DEF

G

H

Acase of claim of grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate. There is howeverno claim of grant of ownership rights as a protected tenant and interplaybetween the Tenancy Act or the Inams Act.

41. In the judgment of this Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao, theoryof oral surrender of protected tenancy rights prior to 1954 was disbelieved.BIt was held that the application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Actwas filed after an unreasonable delay. Such judgment has been followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vorla Ramachandra Reddy.

42. We do not find that such judgments provide assistance to thearguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Firstly, theCapplication was treated to be one under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act.Section 32 falls in Chapter III of the Act dealing with the rights of thetenants whereas the rights of protected tenants are governed underChapter IV. Section 32 is not applicable stricto sensu except to thelimited extent as mentioned in the explanation to Section 38-E (1) of theTenancy Act. Therefore, judgments in Ponnala Narsing Rao or VorlaDRamachandra Reddy are not applicable to the facts of the presentcase. Sub-section (5) of Section 38-E provides for an enquiry to ascertainthe genuineness of surrender of the right by the protected tenant underclause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19. There is no provision inChapter IV of the Tenancy Act to surrender protected tenancy rights.EHowever, if an application is made under Section 19(1) of the TenancyAct, the genuineness of such surrender is required to be ascertained bythe Collector.

43. The judgment in Boddam Narsimha is not helpful to thearguments raised by Mr. Dave as it is not a case of protected tenant onFthe dates mentioned in Sections 35, 37 and 37-A.

44. The order of the learned Single Bench in Jupudi Bhushanamis to the effect that once certificate under Section 38-E is granted, andsubsequently he has been dispossessed, he has the right to seek remedyfrom the Civil Court. The High Court has failed to notice that theGexplanation in sub-section (1) of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Actspecifically provides that if a protected tenant, on account of his beingdispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildaras provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date ofthe notification issued under sub-section (1), then, the Tahsildar shallnotwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suoH

motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry,and direct that such land in possession of the land holder or any personclaiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from suchpossession thereof and shall be restored to the protected tenant.

45. In the judgment of Kasa Muthanna, the plaintiff was relyingupon a certificate under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act whereas thedefendant was relying upon a sale which was void in terms of Section38 of the Tenancy Act. The High Court was examining in second appealfiled by the defendant, when the certificate under Section 38-E wasgranted to the plaintiff or their predecessors. In the aforesaid case, acertificate issued under section 38-E had become final and binding fornot being challenged as per the procedure established by law. The Courtheld that the revenue entries made ignoring the 38-E certificate are illegaland that when once the title is established and the defendants had failedto prove adverse possession or any other right to remain in possession,the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of recovery possession.

46. In the judgment reported as J. Narayana & Ors. v. JainapallyPedda Kistaiah and Ors[20], the question examined was whether theappellants are the protected tenants or owners under Section 38-E ofthe Tenancy Act. The High Court held as under:

“16. From a perusal of the above, it is clear that it is only after thecertificate is issued under sub-section (2), that the rights ofownership stand conferred upon a protected tenant. Anotherimportant aspect is that even where a certificate is issued, it mustbe followed by determination of the amount to be paid to the landowner and actual payment thereof. The default in payment ofprice in its entirety or portion thereof would lead to annulment ofthe ownership.

17. In the instant case the appellants were not issued any certificateof ownership at all. They did not even produce any deed of lease,which contains their names. It was not even pleaded that theprice for the land was determined and the same was paid asprovided under sub-section (3) of Sec.38-E of the Tenancy Act.

xxx

xxxxxx

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A22. It is important to note that if a P.T. or his successors aredispossessed from the land, they can seek the relief of recoveryof possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act by filingapplication before the Tahsildar. As a matter fact, they filed anapplication under Sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act way back in theByear 1988 for recovery of possession against the Respondents.That, however, was after the lands were acquired and Notificationunder Sec.4 (1) of the Act was published. Till today no ordershave been passed thereon. The result is that the Respondents areundisputedly in possession of the land and in contrast the appellantswere never in possession of the same, till it was acquired. TheCPoint No.2 is answered accordingly.”

47. The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant against thegrant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently being withdrawnis wholly inconsequential as after the grant of ownership certificate inDterms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the protected tenants aredeemed to be owners. Once the protected tenants are deemed to beowners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as thepurchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant ofownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Suchcertificate was also not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title ofEthe protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vestswith them.

48. Now we shall examine the occupancy rights certificate grantedto the purchasers in the year 1982. There was no right with the purchaserFto claim occupancy rights on the basis of possession since 1.11.1973upon surrender of protected tenancy rights. If the surrender of protectedtenancy rights is not in accordance with the mandate of the statute, thepossession from 1.11.1973 would be inconsequential as such possessionwould not affect the rights of the protected tenant who is entitled tostatutory protection. In fact, the grant of Certificate unequivocallyGtransfers ownership rights to the protected tenant.

49. The Inams Act is a subsequent statute than the Tenancy Act.Section 33 of the Inams Act is to the effect that nothing in the Act shallin any way be deemed to affect the application of the provisions of theHTenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights and obligations of Inamdar

and his tenants, save insofar as the said provisions are in any wayinconsistent with the express provisions of this Act. Section 38-E (1) ofthe Tenancy Act, as substituted in the year 1971, starts with a non-obstante clause giving overriding effect to any other law for the timebeing in force. Such sub-clause will include the Inams Act and that InamsAct will not be operative in the case of Section 38-E (1) of the TenancyAct. This notification was issued on 1.1.1973 to cover the entire TelanganaArea of the State. Both the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act are enactedby the same Legislature. The Inams Act is a later Act enacted in theyear 1955 but Section 38-E (1) was substituted in the year 1971 whichstarts with a non-obstante clause. Therefore, ownership certificategranted under the Tenancy Act would prevail over the grant of occupancyrights certificate under the Inams Act. Both the Acts operate in differentspheres. Inams Act deals with the land owner, whereas the TenancyAct protects the rights of the tiller i.e., tenant including a protected tenant.In terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the Inams Act, all rights, title and interestsvesting in the Inamdar including the protected tenant shall cease and bevested absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. Section 7 ofthe Inams Act deals with the right of a protected tenant to be registeredas an occupant of such inam lands in his possession as may be left overafter the allotment under Section 4. Section 38-E of the Tenancy Actwas inserted initially in the year 1954 and subsequently substituted in1971 giving overriding effect to such provision. Therefore, an Inamdarunder the Inams Act would not have any right of allotment of occupancyrights in view of overriding effect given to Section 38-E.

50. However, ownership rights were granted to the protectedtenant in respect of land measuring 19 acres and 16 guntas whereasoccupancy rights have been granted in respect of the land measuring31.05 guntas including of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in VillageJeedimetla on 19.2.1982. Therefore, the said occupancy rights certificatein favor of the purchaser shall be valid in respect of the land fallingunder Survey Nos. 61 and 62, which is not the land claimed by theprotected tenant as part of their tenancy. The Occupancy RightsCertificate in respect of land falling in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 isnull and void and inoperative.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A51. The protected tenant shall be entitled to restoration ofpossession in terms of explanation to Section 38-E (1) read with Section32 of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar to ensure that the possession isdelivered to the protected tenant within 3 months.

52. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed except to the extentBof land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in respect of which the occupancycertificate granted to the purchasers on 19.2.1982 would be valid.

C

Divya Pandey

Appeals dismissed.

D

E

F

G

H