Supreme Court of India
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS.versusMANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 588
- Decided
- 1 October 2021
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Holding
A protected tenant’s tenancy cannot be surrendered orally or without compliance with Section 38‑E(5) and Section 19, and the ownership certificate under Section 38‑E vests full ownership in the protected tenant, thereby nullifying any occupancy‑rights certificate for the same land.
Summary
The case concerned a dispute between purchasers (Thota Sridhar Reddy & ors.) who claimed occupancy rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and protected tenants (Mandala Ramulamma & ors.) who held a certificate of ownership under Section 38‑E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The purchasers relied on an alleged oral surrender of tenancy in 1954 and a sale deed of 1957, while the tenants argued that such surrender was illegal because a protected tenant may surrender only in the manner prescribed by Section 38‑E(5) read with Section 19. The Supreme Court held that oral surrender is impermissible, that the surrender was not recorded by the Tehsildar and therefore void, and that the ownership certificate vested full ownership in the protected tenants, rendering the occupancy‑rights certificate void for the land covered by that certificate. Only the portion of land not covered by the ownership certificate (Survey Nos. 61‑62) remained subject to the occupancy rights. The appeals were dismissed, restoring possession to the protected tenants for the majority of the land.
Issues considered
- The validity of an oral surrender of tenancy rights by a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act.
- Whether a surrender of protected tenancy must be effected in writing and approved by the Tehsildar under Section 38‑E(5) and Section 19.
- The effect of a certificate of ownership under Section 38‑E on any subsequent occupancy‑rights certificate issued under the Inams Act.
- The relationship between the Tenancy Act and the Inams Act, particularly the overriding effect of the non‑obstante clause in Section 38‑E(1).
- The entitlement of the protected tenant to restoration of possession under Sections 36, 44 and 32 of the Tenancy Act.
- The impact of the withdrawal of an appeal in 1989 and a belated appeal in 2015 on the parties' rights.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955s. 3(2)(b), s. 33, s. 7
- Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950s. 19, s. 30, s. 32, s. 33, s. 36, s. 38-E, s. 44, s. 46, s. 47
Subjects
protected tenantoral surrenderSection 38‑ETenancy ActInams Actoccupancy rights certificateownership certificatenon‑obstante clauserestoration of possessionland reform
Judgment
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161 1161
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. A
v.
MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2021)
OCTOBER 01, 2021 B
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 – ss.19, 38-E – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Protected tenant – Oral surrender
C
of the tenancy rights, if permissible – High Court set aside the order
dtd.19.2.82 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer granting
occupancy rights to predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-
purchaser as well as the order passed by Joint Collector dismissing
the appeal filed by the protected tenant – Occupancy rights granted
to the purchaser stood annulled – On appeal, held: Surrender of D
oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the
Tenancy 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 protected
tenant is set up in the year 1954 followed by sale of tenancy rights
in 1957 – Thereafter, the petition u/s.19, Tenancy Act was filed to
E
seek approval of the Tenancy rights, but was withdrawn on the
basis of an order withdrawing the appeal against the grant of
occupancy rights – Thus, the purchasers took steps to procure
surrender of tenancy rights, realizing that such surrender cannot
be oral or by executing a sale deed – It was a cover up operation
initiated by the purchaser – Since, neither the oral surrender nor F
surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the
subsequent surrender approved by Mandal Revenue Officer is a
nullity as such surrender is in contravention of the statutory
provisions – Protected tenant was conferred ownership rights
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act on 23.3.75 whereas the conferment of
G
occupancy rights were granted in the year 1982 under the Inams
Act – On grant of certificate of ownership u/s.38-E, the protected
tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land – Once
the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be
any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of
H
1161
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act – Appeals allegedly filed by the protected
tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and
subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential – Title of
the protected tenants is complete and the ownership vests with them
– Entitled to restoration of possession.
B
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 – ss.19, 32, 38-E – Held: Neither s.19 nor s.32
forming part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in
respect of protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of s.19 on the basis of s.38-E(5) which starts with a non
C obstante clause giving overriding effect to anything contained in
s.38-E.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 – Operation of the Acts – Held: Both the Inams Act
D and the Tenancy Act are enacted by the same Legislature – The
Inams Act is a later Act enacted in 1955 but s.38-E (1) was
substituted in 1971 which starts with a non- obstante clause–
Therefore, ownership certificate granted under the Tenancy Act
would prevail over the grant of occupancy rights certificate under
E the Inams Act – Both the Acts operate in different spheres.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV
of the Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materially
different from that of tenants governed by Chapter III of the
F Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at much higher
pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of 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 the Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of
G protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5) which
starts with a non obstante clause giving overriding effect to
anything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates the
Collector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the
genuineness of the surrender of right made by the protected
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1163
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
tenant. This exercise had to be done before the surrender of A
tenancy rights and not subsequently after many years of alleged
surrender on the strength of unequal bargaining power with the
tenant who survives on the basis of agriculture activities. The
purchasers relied upon an oral surrender of tenancy rights in
the year 1954 and later by a written document of 5.2.1957. The
B
execution of the document in the year 1957 unequivocally proves
the factum of protected tenancy of the respondents herein. Such
surrender is contrary to Section 47 of the Tenancy Act prior to
its omission by AP Act No. 12 of 1969 and in contravention of
Section 38-E(5) read with Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.
[Paras 31, 32][1196-E-H; 1197-A] C
1.2 A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession in
terms of Section 36 as well as Section 44 of the Tenancy Act
which prohibits the termination of protected tenancy. The proviso
to sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Tenancy Act puts complete
embargo on a land holder to exercise the right of resumption D
unless he has within a period of eighteen months from the
commencement of the said Act sought reservation of land to
exercise his right or resumption in terms of the commencement
of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,
1955. The Deputy Collector in terms of the said provision had to
make a necessary enquiry and issue a certificate that the land E
has been so reserved. Thus, the land holder had no right to
terminate the tenancy after the commencement of Amending Act,
1955 except after an enquiry which was to be conducted by the
Deputy Collector. No such reservation had been made nor any
enquiry was conducted, therefore, the rights of protected tenant F
cannot be defeated. The purchasers have relied upon the oral
surrender of protected tenancy in the year 1954. Such surrender
of oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the
Tenancy Act except in the manner which is prescribed under
Section 38-E (5) read with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Still
further, the protected tenant has a right to seek possession in G
terms of Section 36 of the Tenancy Act. Even in terms of Section
38-D, if the land holder intends to sell the land which is in
possession of a protected tenant, he has to give a notice in writing
of his intention to such protected tenant. [Paras 33, 34][1197-B-
F] H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 1.3 Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificate
of ownership under Section 38-E, the protected tenants shall be
deemed to be the full owners of such land. Further, explanation
provided under Section 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenant
has been dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by the
order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, then
B
notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, or
the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal shall be deemed
to be holding the land on the date of notification. The Tahsildar is
under an obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of an
application by the protected tenant, to hold a summary enquiry
C and direct taking of land in possession of the land holder or any
other person claiming through or under him. The possession
from a protected tenant can be taken only if the surrender of
tenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The land
owner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 of
the Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within one
D
year. Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancy
rights by protected tenant and even if the tenancy is terminated,
the land holder is personally liable to restore possession to the
tenant, if he fails to cultivate the land within one year of
termination of tenancy. Once a certificate of ownership is granted
E which is required to be published in the Government Gazette,
the land stands transferred and vested in the protected tenant as
a full owner of such land. Such certificate is final subject to the
rights of the landowner under the Tenancy Act which is only to
seek compensation. [Paras 35, 36][1197-F-H; 1198-A-C]
F 1.4 In the present case, the entire argument is based upon
the fact of oral surrender and subsequent filing and withdrawal of
appeal in the year 1989 and of filing a belated appeal against the
ownership certificate in the year 2015. The fact of filing of an
appeal and its withdrawal was not raised in the first instance by
the purchasers in proceedings before the Joint Collector or before
G the High Court. Since such documents were not produced at the
earliest opportunity, and the veracity of such documents is not
beyond doubt, there cannot be any attribution of knowledge of
the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers. It
is strange that the appeal was withdrawn on 14.2.1989 but Section
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1165
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
19 petition was dismissed on the basis of alleged withdrawal of A
appeal on 31.1.1989. The High Court has held that the interest
of the protected tenant cannot be validly conveyed in law in view
of Section 30 of the Tenancy Act. In the present case, the surrender
of tenancy rights is before the Mandal Revenue Officer on
31.1.1989, whereas as per the proviso to Section 19(1)(a) of the
B
Tenancy Act, a tenant can surrender his rights at least a month
before the commencement of the year and that surrender is to
be made by the tenant in writing. Such surrender is to be admitted
by him before the Tehsildar and the authority is to satisfy itself
that surrender is made in good faith. In the present case, the oral
surrender by the protected tenant is set up in the year 1954. C
Such surrender is followed by sale of tenancy rights in the year
1957. Thereafter, the petition under Section 19 of the Tenancy
Act was filed to seek approval of the Tenancy rights, such
application was withdrawn on the basis of an order withdrawing
the appeal against the grant of occupancy rights. This shows that
D
the purchasers have taken steps to procure surrender of tenancy
rights, realizing that such surrender cannot be orally or by
executing a sale deed. It was a cover up operation initiated by
the purchaser but the same was still against the mandate of the
statute as the finding of the surrender has to be recorded by the
Tehsildar. Since, neither the oral surrender nor surrender in E
writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the subsequent
surrender approved by the Mandal Revenue Officer is a nullity
and bears no legal effect as such surrender is in contravention of
the statutory provisions. The protected tenant was conferred
ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act on
F
23.3.1975 whereas the conferment of occupancy rights were
granted 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 enquiry
to ascertain the genuineness of surrender of the right by the
protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section G
19. There is no provision in Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act to
surrender protected tenancy rights. However, if an application is
made under Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act, the genuineness
of such surrender is required to be ascertained by the Collector.
The High Court has failed to notice that the explanation in sub- H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A section (1) of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act specifically
provides that if a protected tenant, on account of his being
dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the
Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the
land on the date of the notification issued under sub-section (1),
then, the Tahsildar shall notwithstanding anything contained in
B
the said Section 32, either suo 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 person claiming
through or under him in that area, shall be taken from such
possession 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) 9
SCC 183 : 1998 ( 7 ) JT 600; Vorla Ramachandra
Reddy & Anr. v. Joint Collector I & Ors. (2021) SCC
OnLine TS 703; Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan
D & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 410 : [2007] 1 SCR 1223 –
distinguished.
1.6 The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant
against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently
being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant of
E ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy
Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners. Once the
protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be
any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested
of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate
under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also
F not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of the protected
tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with
them. There was no right with the purchaser to claim occupancy
rights on the basis of possession since 1.11.1973 upon surrender
of protected tenancy rights. If the surrender of protected tenancy
G rights is not in accordance with the mandate of the statute, the
possession from 1.11.1973 would be inconsequential as such
possession would not affect the rights of the protected tenant
who is entitled to statutory protection. In fact, the grant of
Certificate unequivocally transfers ownership rights to the
protected tenant.[Paras 47, 48][1202-D-G]
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1167
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
1.7 The Inams Act is a subsequent statute than the Tenancy A
Act Section 33 of the Inams Act is to the effect that nothing in
the Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of the
provisions of the Tenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights and
obligations of Inamdar and his tenants, save insofar as the said
provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions
B
of this Act. Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act, as substituted in
the year 1971, starts with a non-obstante clause giving overriding
effect to any other law for the time being in force. Such sub-clause
will include the Inams Act and that Inams Act will not be operative
in the case of Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act. This notification
was issued on 1.1.1973 to cover the entire Telangana Area of the C
State. Both the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act are enacted by
the same Legislature. The Inams Act is a later Act enacted in the
year 1955 but Section 38-E (1) was substituted in the year 1971
which starts with a non- obstante clause. Therefore, ownership
certificate granted under the Tenancy Act would prevail over the
D
grant of occupancy rights certificate under the Inams Act. Both
the Acts operate in different spheres. Inams Act deals with the
land owner, whereas the Tenancy Act protects the rights of the
tiller i.e., tenant including a protected tenant. Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act was inserted initially in the year 1954 and
subsequently substituted in 1971 giving overriding effect to such E
provision. Therefore, an Inamdar under the Inams Act would not
have any right of allotment of occupancy rights in view of
overriding effect given to Section 38-E. [Para 49][1202-G-H;
1203-A-E]
1.8 However, ownership rights were granted to the F
protected tenant in respect of land measuring 19 acres and 16
guntas whereas occupancy rights have been granted in respect
of the land measuring 31.05 guntas including of land falling in
Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla on 19.2.1982.
Therefore, the said occupancy rights certificate in favor of the
purchaser shall be valid in respect of the land falling under Survey G
Nos. 61 and 62, which is not the land claimed by the protected
tenant as part of their tenancy. The Occupancy Rights Certificate
in respect of land falling in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 is null
and void and inoperative. The protected tenant shall be entitled
to restoration of possession in terms of explanation to Section H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 38-E (1) read with Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar
to ensure that the possession is delivered to the protected tenant
within 3 months. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed except
to the extent of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in respect of
which the occupancy certificate granted to the purchasers on
19.2.1982 would be valid. [Paras 50-52][1203-F-H; 1204-A-B]
B
S. Rangaiah and Ors. v. Collector Medak & Ors. (1996)
SCC Online AP 275; S. Veera Reddy v. Chetlapalli
Chandaiaha (1994) SCC Online AP 510; Bhimavarapu
Venkaiah & Anr. v. RDO (1999) SCC Online AP 896;
S. Narsasimha and Ors. v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga
C Reddy District (2006) SCC Online AP 57 –
distinguished.
Kotaiah & Anr. v. Property Association of the Baptist
Churches(P) Ltd. (1989) 3 SCC 424 : [1989] 3 SCR
472; Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v.
D S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs & Ors. (2010) 1
SCC 756 : [2009] 16 SCR 47; B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala
Narayana Reddy (2016) 15 SCC 102 : [2016] 4 SCR
62 – relied on.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.
E (2019) SCC Online SC 975; Jai Narain Parasrampuria
v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC 756 : [2006] 5
Suppl. SCR 325; Jupudi Bhushanam v. Joint Collector,
Khammam and Ors. (1996) SCC OnLine AP 941; Kasa
Muthanna 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. Jainapally
Pedda Kistaiah and Ors. (2013) SCC OnLine AP 289
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
G [2007] 1 SCR 1223 distinguished Para 10
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 325 referred to Para 14
[2016] 4 SCR 62 relied on Para 17
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1169
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
[1989] 3 SCR 472 relied on Para 20 A
[2009] 16 SCR 47 relied on Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2506
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2019 of the High Court B
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No.3848 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2507 of 2021.
Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., D. Ramakrishna Reddy,
C
V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms. D. Tejaswi Reddy,
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, R. V. Yogesh, Nishesh Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellants.
B. Adi Narayan Rao, Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advs., Balram
Goud, Abid Ali Beeran, Mithun Shashank, Sarath S. Janardanan,
D
Ms. Filza Moonis, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy,
M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the order passed by the E
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh whereby revision under Section 28 of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 19551 was allowed
on 3.6.2019 while setting aside the order dated 19.2.1982 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy rights to Shri Thota F
Balakrishna Reddy, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants 2 in
respect 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 4.12.2017
passed by the Joint Collector whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the
protected tenant, represented by Mandala Ramulamma, wife of Mandala
Yettaiah3 was dismissed. The resultant effect of such order of the High G
Court was that the occupancy rights granted to the purchaser stood
annulled.
1
For short, the ‘Inams Act’
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘purchaser’
3
For short, the ‘protected tenant’ H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 2. Now, the purchaser seeks restoration of the occupancy rights
granted in their favor on 19.2.1982 in the present appeals. On the other
hand, the protected tenant claims such rights on the strength of certificate
granted to Mandala Yettaiah on 20.3.1975 under Section 38-E of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
19504.
B
3. It is not in dispute that one Mandala Lakshmaiah was the
protected tenant over the land measuring 19 acres and 16 guntas bearing
Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 in Village Jeedimetla, District Hyderabad.
The tenancy rights were said to be surrendered orally in favor of Shri
Thota Balakrishna Reddy in the year 1954. The original Inamdar Jayaram
C
Rao and Venkateshwar Rao executed sale deed of the land measuring
19 acres and 16 guntas on 5.7.1957 in favor of the purchaser- Shri Thota
Balakrishna Reddy. On the same day, the protected tenant has also
purportedly sold the tenancy rights in favor of the purchaser.
4. The purchaser applied for occupancy rights certificate under
D
the Inams Act in the year 1975. Such certificate was granted to him on
19.2.1982 in view of the occupation and possession of the land by the
purchaser. On the other hand, the protected tenant was conferred
ownership rights when the certificate of ownership under Section 38-E
of the Tenancy Act was issued on 20.3.1975. The certificate of ownership
E granted to protected tenant reads thus:
“CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP UNDER SECTION 38-E
OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA)
TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT 1950
Whereas Sri Yettaiah is the protected tenant of the land
F
specified below belonging to the land holder Sri M. Venkateswar
Rao, S/o Nanatha Rao.
And whereas by virtue of Govt. Notification No. G.O.
Ms. No.3, Revenue (G) dated 1st January, 1973 issued under
Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy
G
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the ownership of the said land
stands transferred to the said Sri Yettaiah.
It is hereby declared that the said tenancy Sri Yettaiah shall
be deemed to be owner of the said land with effect from 1st January,
4
H For short, the ‘Tenancy Act’
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1171
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
1973 as against the land holder and all other persons having any A
interest therein.
DESCRIPTION OF LAND
B
C
’’
5. The purchaser had the protected tenancy rights firstly by the
D
alleged oral surrender in the year 1954 and secondly, by transfer of
tenancy rights vide a registered document on 5.7.1957 and later the
factum of withdrawing of an appeal by the protected tenant on 14.2.1989
against the grant of occupancy rights certificate to the purchaser. The
purchaser also relies upon an order passed by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Gutubullapur Mandal on 31.1.1989 in a petition under Section E
19 of the Tenancy Act recognizing the surrender of protected tenancy
rights by the protected tenant on the basis of an affidavit allegedly filed
by him on 24.1.1989 to withdraw the appeal against the grant of
occupancy rights to the purchaser. Though the order of withdrawal of
appeal was passed on 14.2.1989, but Section 19 petition was dismissed
F
on 31.1.1989.
6. Civil Appeal Nos. 2508-2509 of 2021 by way of Special Leave
Petitions were filed by the persons who have purchased plots, amongst
other persons, in the colony known as Meenakshi Estates, developed on
the land admeasuring 9 acres 16 guntas. In the said appeals, the legal
G
heirs of successors-in-interest of the protected tenant gave up their claim
over the land in question and confined their claim to the remaining land
excluding the land measuring 9 acres 16 guntas. Thus, the issue in the
present appeals is in respect of the residual 10 acres of land.
H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 7. In view of this factual background, the question required to be
examined herein is as to whether the stand of the purchaser that the
protected tenant had surrendered the tenancy rights orally and which
was later on accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.1.1989 is
legal and valid and not in contravention of the provisions of the Tenancy
Act. The ancillary question would be whether the purchaser could claim
B
occupancy rights on 19.2.1982 when the ownership rights were
transferred in favor of the protected tenant on 20.3.1975. It is also to be
ascertained whether there was any transferrable interest in the property
which could be granted to the purchaser in 1982. Such contentions are
required to be assessed in the light of the statutory provisions of the
C Tenancy Act and Inams Act which read as thus:
“TENANCY ACT
2(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject
or context:-
D xxx xxx xxx
(r) “Protected tenant” means a person who is deemed to be a
protected tenant under the provisions of this Act;
(Substituted by AP Act No. 15 of 1971 for “Protected” means a
person who is deemed to be protected tenant under the provisions
E
of this Act)
xxx xxx xxx
(v) “Tenant” means an asami shikmi who holds land on lease and
includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the
F provisions of this Act;
xxx xxx xxx
CHAPTER III
Tenant
G
19. (1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or
order of a Court of law, but subject to the provisions of sub-section
(3), no tenancy of land shall be terminated before the expiration
of the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leased
otherwise than,-
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1173
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
(a) by the tenant by surrender of his rights to the landholder at A
least a month before the commencement of the year.
Provided that such surrender is made by the tenant in writing
and is admitted by him before and is made in good faith to the
satisfaction of the Tahsildar; or
B
Provided further that where the land is cultivated jointly by
joint tenants or members of an undivided Hindu Family, unless the
surrender is made by all of them, it shall be ineffective in respect
of such joint tenants as have not joined in the application for
surrender, irrespective of the fact that the names of all the joint
tenants are not mentioned in the certificate; C
(b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section (2).
xxx xxx xxx
CHAPTER IV
Protected Tenant
D
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 if
he-
(a) has held such land as a tenant continuously, -
E
(i) for a period of not less than six years, being a period wholly
included in the Fasil years 1342 and 1352 (both years inclusive),
or
(ii) for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding
the 1st day of January, 1948, or
F
(iii) for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlier
than the 1st day of the Fasil year 1353 (6th October, 1943), and
completed before the commencement of this Act, and
xxx xxx xxx
G
(3) A person who at the commencement of this Act is no longer in
possession of land in respect of which he is deemed under sub-
section (1) to be a protected tenant shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in that sub-section, not be deemed to be a protected
tenant in respect of such land if-
H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A (a) he was evicted from such land in pursuance of a decree or
order 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 on
such land, or
B
(d) such land has been permanently diverted by the land-holder
to non-agricultural uses.
Explanation.- In sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section and in
sections 35, 36 and 37 references to a person include references
C to such two or more persons as are referred to in Explanation III
to sub-section (1).”
*38-E. (1) Notwithstanding anything is this Chapter or any law
for the time being in force or any custom, usage, judgment, decree,
contract or grant to the contrary, the Government may, by
D notification in the Telangana Gazette, declare in respect of any
area and from such date as may be specified therein, that ownership
of all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to
purchase from their land-holders in such area under any provision
of this Chapter shall, subject to the condition laid down in sub-
section (7) of section 38, stand transferred to and vest in the
E
protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected
tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands:
Provided that where in respect of any such land, any
proceeding under section 19 or section 32 or section 44 is pending
on the date so notified, the transfer of ownership of such land
F
shall take effect on the date, on which such proceeding is finally
decided, and when the tenant retains possession of the land in
accordance with the decision in such proceeding.
Explanation:- If a protected tenant, on account of his being
dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the
G
Tahsildar as provided in section 32, is not in possession of the land
on the date of the notification issued hereunder, then for the
purposes of this sub-section, such protected tenant shall,
notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, or
the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal or other authority,
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1175
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of the A
notification; and accordingly, the Tahsildar shall notwithstanding
anything contained in the said section 32, either suo motu or on
the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry,
and direct that such land in possession of the landholder or any
person claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken
B
from the possession of the landholder or such person, as the case
may be, and shall be restored to the protected tenant and the
provisions of this section shall apply thereto in every respect as if
the protected tenant had held the land on the date of such
notification.
C
(2) A certificate in the prescribed form declaring him to be owner
shall be issued by the Tribunal after holding such enquiry as may
be prescribed, to every such protected tenant and notice of such
issue shall simultaneously be issued to the landholder. Such
certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant
having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of D
the certificate as against the landholder and all other persons having
any interest therein:
Provided that where the land, the ownership of which has
been transferred to the protected tenant under sub-section (1), is
in the occupation of a person other than the protected tenant or E
holder of the certificate issued under this sub-section, it shall be
lawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said land
to the protected tenant or holder of the certificate, after giving
notice of eviction to the occupant thereof, in the prescribed manner.
(3) Within ninety days from the date of notice of issue of the F
certificate under sub-section (2), every land-holder of lands
situated in the area specified in the notification under sub-section
(1), shall file an application before the Tribunal for the determination
of the reasonable price of his interest in the land which has been
transferred to the ownership of a protected tenant under sub-
G
section (1), and if an application is not so filed within such period
by the landholder, the Tribunal may suo-motu proceed to determine
such price and thereupon all the provisions of sub-section (4) to
(8) of section 38 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such application:
H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A Provided that if the protected tenant commits default in
respect of any instalment, it shall be recovered by the Government
as arrears of land revenue and paid to the landholder:
Provided further that if the whole or any part of the price
due to the landholder cannot be recovered as arrears of land
B revenue the transfer shall not be effective and the amount, if any,
already paid by the protected tenant towards the price shall be
refunded to him together with interest at three percent per annum
and the land revenue paid by him, if any, after deducting therefrom
the rent for the period.
C (4) The Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the
provisions of this section, by rules, make such supplemental,
incidental and consequential provisions as they may deem
necessary, such as the procedure for making inquiry to ascertain
the extent of the holding of the tenant as on the notified date and
the extent of the land which is to be deemed to have been
D
transferred to and vested in the protected tenants.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or section
19, the Collector may, suo-motu at any time, hold an enquiry with
a view to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of the right
made by the protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
E
of section 19, for the purpose of effecting the transfer of ownership
under this section, and pass such order in relation thereto as he
may think fit.
Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall
be passed under this sub-section unless such person has had an
F
opportunity of making his representation thereto.
• Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954. Inserted clause
reads as under:-
“38-E (1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter or any law
G for the time being in force or any custom, usage, decree,
contract or grant to the contrary the Government may, by
notification in the Jarida, declare in respect of any area and
from such date as may be specified therein that ownership of
all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to
purchase from their land-holders in such area under any
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1177
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
provision of this chapter shall subject to the provisions of sub- A
section (7) of section 38 of the Act stand transferred to and
vest in the protected tenants holding them and from such date
the protected tenant shall be deemed to be the full owner of
such lands.”
The said provision was Substituted by AP Act No. 15 of B
1971, as extracted above.
xxx xxx xxx
44. **[(1)Subject the provisions of sub-section (8) a landholder
who, on the date on which the Hyderabad Tenancy and
C
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1954 comes into force, is
not already cultivating personally an area to three times the family
holding for the local area concerned and who in good faith requires
land leased out to a protected tenant for cultivating personally
may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19 of the Act,
terminate the tenancy and resume such land or portion of such D
land that would, together with the land which he is already
cultivating personally, either as owner or protected tenant, be equal
to three times the family holding, by making an application in the
manner prescribed to the Collector or any other officer whom the
Government may from time to time authorise in this behalf.
E
***[Provided that after the commencement of the
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,
1955, no such landholder shall be entitled to exercise the right of
resumption under this sub-section unless he has within a period of
eighteen months from the commencement of the said Act filed
F
with the Deputy Collector, in the prescribed manner, a statement
of reservation demarcating the lands which he reserves for the
exercise of the rights or resumption under this section. On such
statement being filed, the Deputy Collector shall, as soon as may
be, after making necessary enquiry, issue a certificate to the
landholder in the prescribed manner to the effect that the lands G
have been so reserved. The right to terminate tenancy shall be
exercisable only in respect of the lands specified in the certificate
as so reserved and shall not extend to any other land.]
** Substituted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954.
H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A *** Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1956
(2) The landholder’s right to terminate tenancy of any protected
tenant under sub-section (1) shall be limited to an area which
shall after such termination, leave with the protected tenant an
area, which together with the land owned by him or cultivated by
B him as a protected tenant, is equal to a basic holding for the local
area concerned:
Provided that, where by such resumption the land that will
be left with protected tenant together with other land owned or
cultivated by him will be less than a basic holding, the landholder’s
C right of terminating the tenancy, shall be limited to half the area of
land leased out by him to the said protected tenant:
Provided further, that where the land owned by a landholder
does not exceed a basic holding he will be entitled to resume the
entire land leased by him.]
D
46. If at any time the tenant makes an application to the Tahsildar
and satisfies him that the landholder has failed to comply within a
reasonable time with the provisions of Section 45, the protected
tenant shall be entitled on a direction by the Tahsildar to obtain
immediate possession of the land to such compensation as may
E be awarded by the Tahsildar for any loss caused to the tenant by
his eviction and by the failure of the landholder to restore or give
possession 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 the
F
time being in force or in any decree or order of a Court, no
permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land
shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction
of, #[or in the case of a disposition by will] has been confirmed
by, the Taluqdar.
G
##[Provided that the Collector may declare a permanent
alienation or any other transfer of agricultural land to be valid if
the permanent alienation or transfer took place before the
commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1954 and possession of the land transferred
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1179
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
was given to the vendee before such commencement if application A
for 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] shall
be made and disposed of in accordance with such procedure as
B
may be prescribed.
# Deleted by Hyderabad Act No. XXIII of 1951
INAMS ACT
1. (1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
C
Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
(2) It extends to the whole of the Telangana area of the State of
Andhra 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), D
(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 for
the purposes of the aforesaid sections, Section 36 and Section 37,
shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in the
Official Gazette;
E
(b) the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as the
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint
in this behalf.
2. (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject
or context- F
xxx xxx xxx
(c) ‘inam’ means land held under a gift or a grant made by the
Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent
grantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or G
other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled
with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon
and entered as such in the village records and includes-
(i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and
H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A (ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as
inam in the village records:
Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas, the expression
inam shall not include such lands as have not been recognised as
inams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs.
B
xxx xxx xxx
(j) ‘protected tenant’ means the protected tenant as defined in the
Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
xxx xxx xxx
C
3. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
usage, settlement, contract, grant, sanad, order or other instrument,
Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law and
notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenue
or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all inams
D shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State.
(2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of this
Act and with effect from the date of vesting, the following
consequences shall ensue, namely:-
(a) the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli
E
relating to inams, and the provisions of the Telangana Atiyat
Enquiries Act, 1952 and other enactments, rules, regulations and
circulars in force in respect of Atiyat grants shall, to the extent,
they are repugnant, to the provisions of this Act, not apply and the
provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, relating
F to unalienated lands for purposes of land revenue, shall apply to
the said inams;
(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar, kabiz-e-
kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected
tenant in respect of the inam land, other than the interest expressly
G saved by or under provisions of this Act and including those in all
communal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands (whether
assessed or not), waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and
minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works,
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1181
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the A
State free from all encumbrances.
xxx xxx xxx
(h) the relationship with regard to inam land as between the
inamdaar and kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant
B
or non-protected tenant shall be extinguished;
xxx xxx xxx
4. (1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting,
be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other
than- C
(a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands; waste
lands, forest lands, mines and quarries; tanks, tank beds and
irrigation works, streams and rivers;
(b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered
D
under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act;
(c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any
person other than the inamdar;
which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his
personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he E
separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a
half times the ‘family holding’.
xxx xxx xxx
7. (1) Every protected tenant shall, with effect from the date of F
vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such inam
lands in his possession as may be left over after the allotment
under section 4, which were under his personal cultivation and
which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates
personally, are equal to four and a half times the ‘family holding’.
G
(2) The protected tenant shall be entitled to compensation from
the Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inam
lands in his possession in excess of the limit specified in sub-
section (1) whether cultivated or not:
H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A Provided that-
(a) he continued to be a tenant of such inam lands until the
date of vesting; or
(b) if he is not in possession, he has been unlawfully
dispossessed of such lands by the inamdar between the 10th of
B
June, 1950 and the date of vesting.
(3) No protected tenant shall be entitled to be registered as an
occupant under sub-section (1) unless he pays to the Government
as premium an amount equal to forty times the land revenue for
dry land and thirteen times for wet land. The amount of premium
C
shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along
with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment shall
be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect
of which it is payable.
Provided that the protected tenant who is a poor person
D
shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under sub-section
(1), without payment of any premium to the Government.
xxx xxx xxx
E 10. Collector shall examine the nature and history of all lands in
respect of which an Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant,
protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims to be registered
as an occupant under sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as the case may be,
and decide-
F (a) in whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands, the
claims should be allowed;
(b) the land revenue and the premium payable in respect of
such lands.
xxx xxx xxx
G
33. Nothing in this Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the
application of the provisions of the Telangana Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to any inam or the mutual rights and
obligations of an Inamdar and his tenants, save in so far as the
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1183
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express A
provisions 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 come
into force on the date of publication of the Inams Act in the Official
Gazette on 20.7.1955 in terms of Section 1(3)(a) of the Inams Act. The B
other 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 deemed
to be a protected tenant in respect of any land of which he is not in the
possession at the time of commencement of the Act. He can seek to C
recover possession, if he intimates to the landholder within six months of
the said commencement that he is willing to hold the land on the terms
and conditions on which he held it before he lost possession thereof as
per Section 36. Still further, Section 38 starts with non obstante clause
contemplating that a protected tenant shall at any time after the
D
commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1954, be entitled to purchase the land-holder’s interest
in the land held by the former as a protected tenant. It may be mentioned
that if in respect of a land held by a protected tenant, the landlord concerned
intends to relinquish his interest in the land without receiving any
consideration, the Tribunal shall issue to such protected tenant a certificate E
as 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 the
land held by the protected tenant, he shall give a notice in writing of his
intention to such protected tenant and offer to sell the land to him. The
protected tenant is to convey his intention to purchase the land within six
F
months from the date of receipt of such notice.
10. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellant
inter alia submitted that an appeal against the grant of occupancy rights
on 09.02.1982 was filed on 18.03.1987 by the protected tenant. Such
appeal was beyond the period of 30 days provided to file an appeal. The
G
said appeal was later withdrawn on 14.02.1989. Reliance has been placed
upon a judgment of this Court reported as Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan
Ali Khan & Ors,5 wherein this Court held that the benefit of section 38-
5
(2007) 11 SCC 410 H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A E is to be given to persons holding the lands as protected tenants and
who continue to hold the lands as such on 1.1.1973.
11. It was further argued that the purchasers had purchased Inam
land, governed by the Inams Act. It was also contended that the rights
of the protected tenant under the Tenancy Act are subject to provisions
B of the Inams Act by virtue of Section 33 of the said Act relying on the
judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Rangaiah and Ors. v.
Collector Medak & Ors.6. It was also argued that Inams Act recognizes
the right of Inamdar and protected tenant to sell/ alienate their right and
interest in the land. The reliance was on the judgments reported as
S. Veera Reddy v. Chetlapalli Chandaiaha 7 and Bhimavarapu
C Venkaiah & Anr. v. RDO8, S. Narsasimha and Ors. v. Joint Collector-
II, Ranga Reddy District9. It was thus contended that the bar under
Section 30 restricting sub-division or sub-letting and alienation in terms
of now Section 47 (since repealed) of the Tenancy Act are not applicable
in view of the Inams Act.
D 12. A reference was also made to affidavits filed by Yettaiah, son
of the principal protected tenant as well as by the wife of the protected
tenant, admitting sale of land to the purchaser in 1957. Thus, the argument
was that the certificate of occupancy right was issued on 19.02.1982
upon due enquiry and after hearing the heirs of the original protected
E tenant.
13. Mr. Dave relied upon an appeal filed against the grant of
occupancy rights before the Mandal Revenue Officer wherein statements
of 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 Act
seeking restoration of possession was referred to but it was contended
that the pendency of such application was not disclosed by the
respondents in proceedings before the High Court. Thus, the Respondent
G Nos. 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 57
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1185
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
Reference has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as A
Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf10.
15. Mr. V. Giri, learned counsel in another appeal submitted that
three generations of the protected tenant participated in transactions
granting occupancy rights to the family members of the purchaser in
respect of the subject property. It was argued that the initial appeal B
against the grant of occupancy rights certificate was withdrawn by the
protected tenant. Thereafter, the later appeal against such grant would
be barred ab initio as the same was filed after an inordinate delay of 36
years. Hence, it was argued that the compromise in judicial proceedings
ought to be given utmost sanctity, asserting the compromise arrived at
C
by the parties in 1989 which led to the withdrawal of appeal.
16. It was further argued that the contention of the protected
tenant that they became aware of occupancy rights certificate in the
year 2015 was a clear moonshine defense and that the delay of 33 years
by them per se defeats the proprietorial claim against subject property.
D
Reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court in Ravinder Kaur
Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors11 inter-alia to contend that the
appellants are in possession since the date of purchase, therefore, they
have perfected their possession into title. Another order passed by this
Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4367-4372 of 2016 titled as Jagadish v.
State of Karnataka decided on 29.08.2019 was referred wherein it has E
been held that even though there is no period of limitation prescribed
under Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, but such right is required to be
exercised within reasonable time. Similar view has been taken by the
Division Bench of the High Court in Vorla Ramachandra Reddy &
F
Anr. v. Joint Collector I & Ors.12, wherein the reliance is placed upon
the judgment of this Court reported as Ponnala Narasing Rao v. Nallolla
Pantaiah13. It was thus argued that the challenge to the grant of
occupancy certificate had not been made within reasonable time, thus
the High Court had erred in law to interfere to dispute the legality of the
occupation rights certificate after gross delay and inaction on part of the G
respondents.
10
(2006) 7 SCC 756
11
(2019) SCC Online SC 975
12
2021 SCC OnLine TS 703
13
(1998) 9 SCC 183 H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 17. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon Single
Bench judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Jupudi
Bhushanam v. Joint Collector, Khammam and Ors. 14, Kasa
Muthanna and Another v. Sunke Rajanna and 11 Ors.15 It was argued
that the reliance placed by the High Court on the judgment in Sada v.
The Tahsildar16 is misconceived as in that case, the violation of period
B
of limitation prescribed under Section 24 was not the question, nor the
interplay between the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act was examined
therein. Even the judgment of this Court in B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala
Narayana Reddy17 would not be applicable in the facts of the present
case.
C 18. It was hence contended that the Joint Collector in its order
dated 4.12.2017 has rightly held that Section 38-E Certificate was granted
in favor of the protected tenant under a misconception because of original
uncorrected protected tenancy register. Still further, the Certificate under
Section 38-E should be followed by a payment of compensation to the
D land owner. Since no compensation has been paid, the final vesting does
not take place. Furthermore, the conduct of protected tenant prior to
and subsequent to Section 38-E Certificate demonstrates that such
certificate never attained legal finality in light of the due legal procedure.
19. It was averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the purchaser
E was in possession on 01.11.1973 which entitled him to occupancy rights
under the Inams Act. The name of predecessor-in-interest was also
recorded in the order of 1982 by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the
Joint Collector who passed the order in 2017.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-
F protected tenants submitted that the primary objection of the purchaser
was firstly, settlement and consequent withdrawal of the appeal by the
protected tenants in the year 1989 and secondly, delay in filing of the
appeal in the year 2015. It was argued that the Tenancy Act and Inams
Act 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 interests
G of the tenants and insulate them from relinquishing their rights directly or
indirectly. The freedom of the protected tenant to relinquish his tenancy
14
1996 SCC OnLine AP 941
15
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 592
16
(1987) 2 APLJ 397
17
H (2016) 15 SCC 102
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1187
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
rights are restricted by the statute as such surrender can be only with A
the permission of the Competent Authority. In the present case, the
purchaser has placed reliance upon an oral surrender of tenancy rights
in the year 1954 and subsequent sale thereof in the year 1957. These
two actions are prohibited in law as the surrender has to be in writing
and is to be admitted by the tenant in good faith subject to the satisfaction
B
of 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 rights
orally in 1954 and in writing in 1957, contravenes the statutory protection
granted to the protected tenant. The Tenancy Act has been enacted to
protect the tenants from exploitation of the land owners, therefore, the
interpretation which advances the purpose of the statute should be C
accepted. The statute has prescribed a mode of surrender of tenancy
and such mode alone could be resorted to before the surrender is made.
The subsequent proceedings were to justify the surrender of alleged
tenancy rights. The reliance is placed upon Kotaiah & Anr. v. Property
Association of the Baptist Churches(P) Ltd.18, Edukanti Kistamma
D
(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 disclosed
the factum of the appeal being filed before the Joint Collector or before
the High Court. In fact, the protected tenants had no knowledge of the
appeal being filed and withdrawn. The filing and withdrawal of the appeal E
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances so as to justify the grant of
Occupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers. The order of granting
occupancy rights was passed on 19.2.1982 after issuance of certificate
under Section 38-E. Once ownership rights had been granted under
Section 38-E, the same cannot be disputed except in the manner F
contemplated by law. There was no question of granting occupancy
rights to the purchasers as the land is deemed to be transferred to the
protected tenant as the owner and that there was no interest or title in
the disputed land which could be claimed by the purchasers once the
ownership is granted to the protected tenant. Section 33 of the Inams
Act specifically provides that the Inams Act will not affect the Tenancy G
Act 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 424
19
(2010) 1 SCC 756
H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A after the enactment of Inams Act. Thus, such provisions would prevail
over the Inams Act. Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act substituted in
the year 1971 had given overriding effect to Chapter IV over any other
law which would also include the Inams Act.
22. The argument that the protected tenant has not deposited the
B sale consideration payable to the land owner is inconsequential as it is
land owner who had to apply for compensation by way of an application
to the Tribunal in terms of Section 38-E (3) of the Tenancy Act. In
addition, the payment of sale consideration was the responsibility to be
exercised by the Collector in terms of Section 38-E read with Section 38
sub-sections (4) to (8) of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, failure of the land
C
owner or the Revenue Authorities to assess the compensation payable
by the protected tenant would not defeat his rights by virtue of being
declared as an owner on the strength of a statute. It was also argued
that the land owner could not affect sale of his interest in the land which
is in possession of the protected tenant without giving an opportunity to
D the protected tenant to purchase such land. The ownership rights were
transferred in favor of the purchasers in the year 1957 but no opportunity
was granted to the protected tenant to purchase land. Therefore, in terms
of Section 38-D, the sale itself in favor of the purchasers is in violation
of the prohibition contained in Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act.
E 23. It was further submitted that the Ownership Certificate issued
under Section 38-E has not been challenged by any person before any
authority. Therefore, the transfer of ownership is complete in respect of
the protected tenant. At best, the land owner could claim the unpaid,
undetermined sale price from the protected tenant but the transfer of
ownership rights shall be absolute. Reliance has been placed upon
F
judgment of this Court in Edukanti Kistamma and judgment of the
High Court reported as Sada.
24. It was contended that Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued
to the purchasers without any notice to the protected tenant. Such
certificate would be null and void after the ownership rights were
G
conferred to the protected tenant. The affidavits of Mandala Yettaiah
and Govaramma in 1979 relinquishing the rights are undated, unsigned
and in any case ineffective as there was no permission obtained by the
Tehsildar for surrender of the tenancy rights under Section 38-E (5)
read with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the knowledge of
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1189
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers cannot be A
attributed to the respondents and thus could be disputed in the year 2015
when the information about such Certificate came to the notice of some
of the protected tenants. It was an assertion of the title by the protected
tenant on the basis of certificate granted under Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act. Thus, the Occupancy Rights Certificate obtained by the
B
purchasers was in nullity, void ab initio and without jurisdiction.
25. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and find no
merit 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 Court C
examined various aspects of the Tenancy Act by framing 9 points for
consideration by giving complete legislative history of the Tenancy Act.
The High Court held on the point Nos. 2 and 4 relevant for the purpose
of the preset appeal as under:
“(1) What is the meaning of the words ‘lands held by protected D
tenants’ and whether a protected tenant must have been in physical
possession on the date of notification issued by the Government
under Section 38E(1) of the Act (in this batch 1-1-1973) for
becoming owner of the property and for obtaining the ownership
certificate?
E
4) Whether the new proviso to Section 38E(2) added by Act 2 of
1979 is retrospective and permits restoration of possession where
the ownership certificate has been issued before 11-1-1979 the
date when Act 2 of 1979 has come into force?
“27. In our view, the contention for the landholders that unless the F
protected tenant is in physical possession on the date of notification
issued, under Section 38-E(1), he cannot get the ownership rights,
is not tenable. A plain regarding of S. 38-E (1) shows that the
Government may, by notification in the gazette declare is respect
of any area, that from which such date as may be specified therein,
G
ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they are
entitled to purchase from their landholders in such area shall, subject
to Sec. 38(7), stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenant
holding them. It is important to note that the statute does not say
‘held on the date specified in such notification’. Wherever the
H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A Legislature wanted that land should have been held on any specified
date, it had clearly specified in that Act…
xx xx xx
29. It is clear from S. 38-E that it is for these protected tenants
who are finally declared to be protected tenants’ and included in
B
the Register prepared for that purpose end for whom protected
tenancy certificates have been issued, that ownership rights are
envisaged. In S. 33-E(1), subject of course, to the limitation with
regard to extent of holdings as specified in S. 38(7) and to the
proviso to S. 38-E(1). Once persons who held land on the dates
C or for the periods mentioned in S. 34. 37 and 37-A and the
requirement of physical possession on the dates required in those
sections is satisfied, such persons have become protected tenants’.
Once a person becomes a protected tenant, he earns a qualification
to become an owner by force of statute, subject of course to the
qualification regarding extent in S. 38(7) and to the proviso to S.
D
38-E(1). There is no requirement in the Act that he should also be
in possession on the date specified in the notification issued in S.
38-E(1). The words ‘all lands held by protected tenants’ is more a
description of the lands with regard to which the right as ‘protected
tenant’ has been declared and there are no words requiring physical
E possession on the date specified in the notification.
xx xx 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. As
long as his right as protected tenant has not been determined
F
by date of notification in a manner known 10 the Act, he
‘holds’ the land ax protected tenant, whether physically in
possession or not We shall explain this again under point 7 in the
context of surrender”.
xx xx xx
G
36. For all the aforesaid reasons we hold on Point No. 1 that for
tie vesting of the ownership of land ‘held’ by a protected tenant
under S. 38-E(1), it is not necessary that the protected tenant
should have been in physical possession on the date of notification,
it is sufficient if he continued to hold the status of a ‘protected
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1191
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
tenant’ as on the notified date even if not in physical possession A
and he satisfied the requirements of S. 32(7) of the Act. This is
also 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-
B
E(2) added by Act 2 of 1979 is retrospective and permits restoration
of possession Where ownership the certificate is issued before
11-1-1979 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 judgment
C
in Narsaiah’s case (1), There, it was held, that once the protected
tenant has become owner, there is no machinery in the Act enabling
him to obtain possession. It was pointed out that the provision in
the latter part of the Explanation to S. 38 E (1) enabling a ‘protected
tenant’ to obtain possession through the Tahsildar was not
applicable to the case of an application by an owner, even if it be D
a case of a protected tenant becoming an owner.
57. In our view, the Legislature wanted to fill up the difficulty
created by Narsaiah’s case when it added the new proviso to S.
38-E(2) enabling the Tahsildar to restore possession to a former
protected tenant who had become the owner. E
xx xx xx
59. It is then argued that the words “the ownership has been
transferred” in the new proviso to S. 38-E(2) show that the
amendment does not apply to cases where the ownership certificate
F
has been issued before 11-1-1979. This interpretation is not correct.
We fully endorse the reasons given in Chennaiah’s case to say
that these words cannot be given such a restricted meaning. Point
No. 4 is decided accordingly.
xx xx xx
G
66. For purposes of S. 38-E(1) the protected tenant should not
have validly surrendered his tenancy right by the date of notification
under S. 38-E(1). But if he had voluntarily surrendered his rights
prior to 4-2-1954 (the date of the 1954 amendment) and put the
landholder in possession, be it without the intervention of the
H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A Tahsildar, he could not claim any rights of ownership under S. 38-
E(1) upon the issue of the notification. Likewise, if the surrender
was after 4-2-1954 and before the date of notification under S.
38-E(1) and such surrender satisfied the requirements of Sec. 19
and was a valid surrender, the protected tenant could not claim
ownership rights. If however there was no valid surrender, whether
B
before (being not voluntarily but forcible), or after (being not in
conformity with S. 19), the protected tenant had a right to be put
back in possession under S. 32 as stated in Venkanna v. Buchamma
(12) and such protected tenants, (if they had not otherwise lost
their status under Ss. 32 or 44 by the notified date) would be
C entitled to ownership rights under S. 38E(1) and would be entitled
to the ownership certificate under S. 38-E(2). In cases where
proceedings under S. 19 are pending on the date of notification
and end in favour of the protected tenant thereafter, the date of
vesting gets postponed till the said decision. Point No. 7 is decided
accordingly.”
D
27. In Kotaiah, this Court held that the protected tenant cannot
be dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. Section 38-D
prohibits 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 a
notice in writing of such intention to the protected tenant. It was concluded
E as under:
“22. In sum...,
(i) The protected tenant has a right to become full owner of the
lands in his possession. He becomes the owner when the
F Government issues a notification under Section 38-E. We are told
that the Government had issued such a notification on 1-10-1973,
relating to the district where the lands in question are situated. It
was about three years earlier to termination of the appellants’
tenancy by the Association. If the appellants had a right to become
owners of the tenanted lands, the question of terminating their
G tenancy would not arise.
(ii) The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by the
landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, the Tehsildar either
suo motu or on application must hold a summary enquiry, and
direct that the land be restored to the protected tenant. That is the
H mandate of Section 38-E and the Explanation thereof.
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1193
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
(iii) The landholder by himself cannot dispossess the protected A
tenant even if the tenancy is terminated in accordance with the
law. The landlord will have to take recourse to Section 32. He
must approach the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry and pass such
order as he deems fit.
(iv) Section 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating the B
tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the
land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected
tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is
only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to
purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. The
alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal C
effect.”
28. In Edukanti Kistamma, the appellants were the protected
tenants and were issued ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act. The stand of the respondents of surrender of the tenancy
rights was found to be invalid. This Court in these circumstances held D
that it is not necessary that a protected tenant should also be in possession
on the date specified in the notification issued under Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act. This Court relied upon the judgment in Kotaiah and held
as under:
“19. In view of the above, it is evident that the scheme of the Act E
provides that a person who is a protected tenant has a right to get
the ownership in accordance with the statutory provisions, provided
the total area of the land owned by the landholder including the
land under the cultivation of his tenants is more than three times
the area of a family holding for the local area concerned. The F
person should be in lawful possession of the land on the date of
commencement of the 1950 Act to claim benefits under the Act.
The Government has to make a declaration by publishing the
notification in the gazette in respect of any area and from such
date as may be specified therein, that the ownership of all lands
held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from G
their landholders in such area under the Act, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 38(7) of the Act would stand
transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them as
such and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to
be the full owners of such lands. H
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 20. The certificate issued under Section 38-E(2) shall be conclusive
evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the
land with effect from the date of the certificate, as against the
landholder and all other persons having any interest therein. In
case the protected tenant is not in possession of the land, he has a
right to restoration of the possession of the said land through the
B
Tahsildar. The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally
by the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, he has a right
to restoration of the possession. He can be dispossessed only by
taking recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 32 of
the 1950 Act.
C
21. There is a complete embargo on the right of the landholder to
alienate the tenanted land to a third party without giving an option
to the tenant to purchase the land. Section 47 of the 1950 Act
(omitted by the amendment of 1969) provided that any transfer of
such land except to the protected tenant shall be void ab initio.
D The protected tenant may surrender his rights by strict adherence
to the statutory requirements under the 1950 Act. In case there is
any deviation from any such requirement, it would render the
surrender ineffective and inconsequential.
xxx xxx xxx
E
26. The 1950 Act being the beneficial legislation requires
interpretation to advance social and economic justice and enforce
the constitutional directives and not to deprive a person of his
right to property. The statutory provisions should not be construed
in favour of such deprivation. Interpretation of a beneficial
F legislation with a narrow pedantic approach is not justified. In
case there is any doubt, the court should interpret a beneficial
legislation in favour of the beneficiaries and not otherwise as it
would be against the legislative intent. For the purpose of
interpretation of a statute, the Act is to be read in its entirety. The
purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by
G
applying the principles of purposive construction. The court must
be strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute’s
utility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as to
make it effective and operative and to further the ends of justice
and not to frustrate the same. The court has the duty to construe
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1195
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
the statute to promote the object of the statute and serve the A
purpose for which it has been enacted and should not efface its
very purpose.
xxx xxx xxx
41. There can be no doubt that once a protected tenant gets a
B
certificate of ownership under Section 38-E(2) of the 1950 Act,
he has a right to apply for restoration of possession to him if he
has been dispossessed. The protected tenant has a right to ask
for summary eviction of a trespasser.”
29. This Court in Boddam approved a Full Bench Judgment of
C
the High Court in Sada. In Boddam, an application was filed claiming
protected tenancy under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act in the year
1998. On 16.12.1998, for the first time, it was alleged that the appellant
was reflected as cultivating tenant in the Khasra Pahani for the year
1954-1955 for three years. The sale deed was executed in his favor by
the owner on 23.11.1959 after permission was granted to his vendor D
under Sections 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act. Bala, the paternal Uncle
of the appellant had not claimed protected tenancy rights during his
lifetime as he died in the year 1975. Even his legal representatives did
not claim protected tenancy. It was only in 1998 that protected tenancy
was sought and the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the
E
Tenancy Act was claimed after more than 40 years. This Court held as
under:
“13. …A person becomes a protected tenant when he is a holder
on the dates or for the periods mentioned in Sections 35, 37 and
37-A. Once a person becomes a protected tenant, he is entitled to
F
an ownership certificate under Section 38-E. In Sada [AIR 1988
AP 77 : (1987) 2 An LT 749 (FB)] the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that a person “holds” the land as
protected tenant if he is still a protected tenant on the notified
date i.e. 1-1-1973, though out of possession. As long as his right
as protected tenant has not been determined by the date of G
notification in a manner known to the Act, he holds the land as a
protected tenant, whether physically in possession or not. For the
vesting of ownership of land held by a protected tenant under
Section 38-E, it is not necessary that the protected tenant should
be in physical possession on 1-1-1973. It is sufficient if
H
1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A he continues to hold the status of a protected tenant on the notified
date, even if he is not in physical possession. The Act does not
merely regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant but deals
with the alienation of agricultural land and includes transfer of the
landholder’s interest to the protected tenants. Therefore, the grant
of pattedari (ownership rights) also finds place in the Act.”
B
30. This Court in Bal Reddy quoted with approval the Full Bench
judgment in Sada as well as the earlier judgment of this Court in Kotaiah
to hold that protected tenancy could be terminated only in a manner
known to law. In the absence of such valid termination of ‘protected
tenancy’, the interest of such protected tenant continues to be operative
C
and subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and
representatives who could then claim restoration of possession. As laid
down in Sada, even if the protected tenant had lost possession, without
there being valid termination of his status as a protected tenant, he would
still be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act.
D
31. We shall now examine the respective contentions of the parties
in view of the law laid down and also the judgment of the High Court in
Sada which has stood the test of time for last more than 30 years. The
scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act in respect
of protected tenant is materially different from that of tenants governed
E by Chapter III of the Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at
much higher pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession
of 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 the
Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of protected tenant except when
the reference is made to the provisions of Section 19 on the basis of
F
Section 38-E(5) which starts with a non obstante clause giving overriding
effect to anything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates the
Collector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the genuineness of
the surrender of right made by the protected tenant. This exercise had
to be done before the surrender of tenancy rights and not subsequently
G after many years of alleged surrender on the strength of unequal
bargaining power with the tenant who survives on the basis of agriculture
activities.
32. The purchasers relied upon an oral surrender of tenancy rights
in the year 1954 and later by a written document of 5.2.1957. The
H execution of the document in the year 1957 unequivocally proves the
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1197
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
factum of protected tenancy of the respondents herein. Such surrender A
is contrary to Section 47 of the Tenancy Act prior to its omission by AP
Act No. 12 of 1969 and in contravention of Section 38-E(5) read with
Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.
33. A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession in terms
of Section 36 as well as Section 44 of the Tenancy Act which prohibits B
the termination of protected tenancy. The proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 44 of the Tenancy Act puts complete embargo on a land holder
to exercise the right of resumption unless he has within a period of
eighteen months from the commencement of the said Act sought
reservation of land to exercise his right or resumption in terms of the
C
commencement of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1955. The Deputy Collector in terms of the said
provision had to make a necessary enquiry and issue a certificate that
the land has been so reserved. Thus, the land holder had no right to
terminate the tenancy after the commencement of Amending Act, 1955
except after an enquiry which was to be conducted by the Deputy D
Collector. No such reservation had been made nor any enquiry was
conducted, therefore, the rights of protected tenant cannot be defeated.
34. The purchasers have relied upon the oral surrender of protected
tenancy in the year 1954. Such surrender of oral tenancy of a protected
tenant is not permissible under the Tenancy Act except in the manner E
which is prescribed under Section 38-E (5) read with Section 19 of the
Tenancy Act. Still further, the protected tenant has a right to seek
possession in terms of Section 36 of the Tenancy Act. Even in terms of
Section 38-D, if the land holder intends to sell the land which is in
possession of a protected tenant, he has to give a notice in writing of his
F
intention to such protected tenant.
35. Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificate of
ownership under Section 38-E, the protected tenants shall be deemed
to be the full owners of such land. Further, explanation provided under
Section 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenant has been dispossessed
G
otherwise than in the manner and by the order of the Tahsildar as provided
in Section 32, then notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any
Court, or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal shall be deemed
to be holding the land on the date of notification. The Tahsildar is under
an obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of an application by
the protected tenant, to hold a summary enquiry and direct taking of land H
1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A in possession of the land holder or any other person claiming through or
under him. The possession from a protected tenant can be taken only if
the surrender of tenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The land owner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 of
the Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within one year.
Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancy rights by
B
protected tenant and even if the tenancy is terminated, the land holder is
personally liable to restore possession to the tenant, if he fails to cultivate
the land within one year of termination of tenancy.
36. Once a certificate of ownership is granted which is required
to be published in the Government Gazette, the land stands transferred
C and vested in the protected tenant as a full owner of such land. Such
certificate is final subject to the rights of the landowner under the Tenancy
Act which is only to seek compensation.
37. The judgments referred to by the learned counsels for the
appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. S. Rangaiah
D was a case of kabiz-e-kadim, which means an old occupier, who is neither
a tenant nor a protected tenant. Such kabiz-e-kadim was granted
protected tenancy status after the land got vested with the Government
on 20.7.1955. The Bench noticed that even after vesting of Inam, a
protected tenant would continue to have tenancy rights and would have
E the disability to enter into the agreement of sale on 22.1.1965 in favor of
the respondents. The present matter is not a case of transfer of rights by
or on behalf of the protected tenant. The entire argument is based upon
the fact of oral surrender and subsequent filing and withdrawal of appeal
in the year 1989 and of filing a belated appeal against the ownership
certificate in the year 2015. The fact of filing of an appeal and its
F withdrawal was not raised in the first instance by the purchasers in
proceedings before the Joint Collector or before the High Court. Since
such documents were not produced at the earliest opportunity, and the
veracity of such documents is not beyond doubt, there cannot be any
attribution of knowledge of the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to
G the purchasers. It is strange that the appeal was withdrawn on 14.2.1989
but Section 19 petition was dismissed on the basis of alleged withdrawal
of appeal on 31.1.1989. The High Court has held that the interest of the
protected tenant cannot be validly conveyed in law in view of Section 30
of the Tenancy Act.
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1199
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
38. In the present case, the surrender of tenancy rights is before A
the Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.1.1989, whereas as per the proviso
to Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, a tenant can surrender his rights
at least a month before the commencement of the year and that surrender
is to be made by the tenant in writing. Such surrender is to be admitted
by him before the Tehsildar and the authority is to satisfy itself that
B
surrender is made in good faith. In the present case, the oral surrender
by the protected tenant is set up in the year 1954. Such surrender is
followed by sale of tenancy rights in the year 1957. Thereafter, the petition
under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act was filed to seek approval of the
Tenancy rights, such application was withdrawn on the basis of an order
withdrawing the appeal against the grant of occupancy rights. This shows C
that the purchasers have taken steps to procure surrender of tenancy
rights, realizing that such surrender cannot be orally or by executing a
sale deed. It was a cover up operation initiated by the purchaser but the
same was still against the mandate of the statute as the finding of the
surrender has to be recorded by the Tehsildar. Since, neither the oral
D
surrender nor surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by the
Tehsildar, the subsequent surrender approved by the Mandal Revenue
Officer is a nullity and bears no legal effect as such surrender is in
contravention of the statutory provisions. The protected tenant was
conferred ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act on
23.3.1975 whereas the conferment of occupancy rights were granted in E
the year 1982 under the Inams Act.
39. In S. Veera Reddy, the appellants were transferees of the
protected tenant who sought declaration. The appellants relied upon a
document dated 8.2.1963 by which the protected tenant was said to
have transferred possession in their favor. On the other hand, one Sattaiah F
claimed possession after alleged surrender of tenancy rights by the
protected tenant. The appellants filed a suit claiming declaration of title
and perpetual injunction. It was also a case where plaintiffs and
defendants 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 the
suit by the appellants. G
40. Bhimavarapu Venkaiah is a case of transfer of Inam land
wherein occupancy rights were claimed and the matter was remitted to
the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application of the first
petitioner for the grant of occupancy rights. S. Narasimha was also a
H
1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A case of claim of grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate. There is however
no claim of grant of ownership rights as a protected tenant and interplay
between the Tenancy Act or the Inams Act.
41. In the judgment of this Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao, theory
of oral surrender of protected tenancy rights prior to 1954 was disbelieved.
B It was held that the application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act
was 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 the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Firstly, the
C application 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 the
tenants whereas the rights of protected tenants are governed under
Chapter IV. Section 32 is not applicable stricto sensu except to the
limited extent as mentioned in the explanation to Section 38-E (1) of the
Tenancy Act. Therefore, judgments in Ponnala Narsing Rao or Vorla
D Ramachandra Reddy are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. Sub-section (5) of Section 38-E provides for an enquiry to ascertain
the genuineness of surrender of the right by the protected tenant under
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19. There is no provision in
Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act to surrender protected tenancy rights.
E However, if an application is made under Section 19(1) of the Tenancy
Act, the genuineness of such surrender is required to be ascertained by
the Collector.
43. The judgment in Boddam Narsimha is not helpful to the
arguments raised by Mr. Dave as it is not a case of protected tenant on
F the dates mentioned in Sections 35, 37 and 37-A.
44. The order of the learned Single Bench in Jupudi Bhushanam
is to the effect that once certificate under Section 38-E is granted, and
subsequently he has been dispossessed, he has the right to seek remedy
from the Civil Court. The High Court has failed to notice that the
G explanation in sub-section (1) of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act
specifically provides that if a protected tenant, on account of his being
dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildar
as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date of
the notification issued under sub-section (1), then, the Tahsildar shall
notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suo
H
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1201
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry, A
and direct that such land in possession of the land holder or any person
claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from such
possession thereof and shall be restored to the protected tenant.
45. In the judgment of Kasa Muthanna, the plaintiff was relying
upon a certificate under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act whereas the B
defendant was relying upon a sale which was void in terms of Section
38 of the Tenancy Act. The High Court was examining in second appeal
filed by the defendant, when the certificate under Section 38-E was
granted to the plaintiff or their predecessors. In the aforesaid case, a
certificate issued under section 38-E had become final and binding for
not being challenged as per the procedure established by law. The Court C
held that the revenue entries made ignoring the 38-E certificate are illegal
and that when once the title is established and the defendants had failed
to 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. Jainapally D
Pedda Kistaiah and Ors20, the question examined was whether the
appellants are the protected tenants or owners under Section 38-E of
the Tenancy Act. The High Court held as under:
“16. From a perusal of the above, it is clear that it is only after the
certificate is issued under sub-section (2), that the rights of E
ownership stand conferred upon a protected tenant. Another
important aspect is that even where a certificate is issued, it must
be followed by determination of the amount to be paid to the land
owner and actual payment thereof. The default in payment of
price in its entirety or portion thereof would lead to annulment of F
the ownership.
17. In the instant case the appellants were not issued any certificate
of ownership at all. They did not even produce any deed of lease,
which contains their names. It was not even pleaded that the
price for the land was determined and the same was paid as G
provided under sub-section (3) of Sec.38-E of the Tenancy Act.
xxx xxx xxx
20
2013 SCC OnLine AP 289 H
1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 22. It is important to note that if a P.T. or his successors are
dispossessed from the land, they can seek the relief of recovery
of possession under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act by filing
application before the Tahsildar. As a matter fact, they filed an
application under Sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act way back in the
B year 1988 for recovery of possession against the Respondents.
That, however, was after the lands were acquired and Notification
under Sec.4 (1) of the Act was published. Till today no orders
have been passed thereon. The result is that the Respondents are
undisputedly in possession of the land and in contrast the appellants
were never in possession of the same, till it was acquired. The
C
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.”
47. The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant against the
grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently being withdrawn
is wholly inconsequential as after the grant of ownership certificate in
D terms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the protected tenants are
deemed to be owners. Once the protected tenants are deemed to be
owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the
purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of
ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such
certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of
E
the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests
with them.
48. Now we shall examine the occupancy rights certificate granted
to the purchasers in the year 1982. There was no right with the purchaser
F to claim occupancy rights on the basis of possession since 1.11.1973
upon surrender of protected tenancy rights. If the surrender of protected
tenancy rights is not in accordance with the mandate of the statute, the
possession from 1.11.1973 would be inconsequential as such possession
would not affect the rights of the protected tenant who is entitled to
statutory protection. In fact, the grant of Certificate unequivocally
G
transfers 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 shall
in any way be deemed to affect the application of the provisions of the
H Tenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights and obligations of Inamdar
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA 1203
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
and his tenants, save insofar as the said provisions are in any way A
inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act. Section 38-E (1) of
the Tenancy Act, as substituted in the year 1971, starts with a non-
obstante clause giving overriding effect to any other law for the time
being in force. Such sub-clause will include the Inams Act and that Inams
Act will not be operative in the case of Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy B
Act. This notification was issued on 1.1.1973 to cover the entire Telangana
Area of the State. Both the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act are enacted
by the same Legislature. The Inams Act is a later Act enacted in the
year 1955 but Section 38-E (1) was substituted in the year 1971 which
starts with a non-obstante clause. Therefore, ownership certificate C
granted under the Tenancy Act would prevail over the grant of occupancy
rights certificate under the Inams Act. Both the Acts operate in different
spheres. Inams Act deals with the land owner, whereas the Tenancy
Act 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 interests
D
vesting in the Inamdar including the protected tenant shall cease and be
vested absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. Section 7 of
the Inams Act deals with the right of a protected tenant to be registered
as an occupant of such inam lands in his possession as may be left over
after the allotment under Section 4. Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act
was inserted initially in the year 1954 and subsequently substituted in E
1971 giving overriding effect to such provision. Therefore, an Inamdar
under the Inams Act would not have any right of allotment of occupancy
rights in view of overriding effect given to Section 38-E.
50. However, ownership rights were granted to the protected
F
tenant in respect of land measuring 19 acres and 16 guntas whereas
occupancy rights have been granted in respect of the land measuring
31.05 guntas including of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in Village
Jeedimetla on 19.2.1982. Therefore, the said occupancy rights certificate
in favor of the purchaser shall be valid in respect of the land falling
under Survey Nos. 61 and 62, which is not the land claimed by the G
protected tenant as part of their tenancy. The Occupancy Rights
Certificate in respect of land falling in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 is
null and void and inoperative.
H
1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R.
A 51. The protected tenant shall be entitled to restoration of
possession in terms of explanation to Section 38-E (1) read with Section
32 of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar to ensure that the possession is
delivered to the protected tenant within 3 months.
52. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed except to the extent
B of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in respect of which the occupancy
certificate granted to the purchasers on 19.2.1982 would be valid.
Divya Pandey Appeals dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "protected tenant"Sign in to search