Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.83668367 OF 2010
Gaddam Ramulu & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Joint Collector, Adilabad
District & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.1442 of 2004
and judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in Review
CMP No.4647 of 2007 whereby the High Court
dismissed the civil revision petition and the review
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.02.27
17:01:13 IST
Reason:
petition filed by the appellants herein.
1
2. A few relevant facts need mention infra for
disposal of these appeals.
3. The dispute relates to a land measuring Ac.13.02
guntas in Survey No.92, Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey
No. 93 and 28 guntas in Survey No. 95 situated in
Garmilla Village, Mancherial Adilabad (hereinafter
referred to as “the suit land”).
4. One Mr. Gaddam Durgaiah held the suit land as
a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on certain
conditions. On his death, his sons (appellants herein)
inherited the suit land. It was, however, noticed that
the appellants, contrary to the purpose for which the
suit land was allotted to them i.e. cultivation,
transferred it to several persons who made
construction thereon.
5. A show cause notice was, therefore, served on the
appellants (protected tenants) under Section 19 of the
2
Act as to why the allotment of the suit land made in
their favour be not cancelled. Since the appellants
failed to file any reply, the rights conferred on them
being the protected tenants under the Act were
cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer vide order
dated 06.10.1990.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed an appeal
before the Joint Collector, Adilabad. By order dated
20.06.1998, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal
and held as under:
“ An examination of lower court records reveal
that the appellant was issued a show cause
notice u/s 19 of the AP (T.A) Tenancy and
Agril. Land Act, 1950 and got served on
26.9.90 for giving his explanation for the
alienation of P.T. land in S.No. 92 to an
extent of (628) acres to Sri Nelli Ramlo S/o
Buchanna through an ordinary sale deed on
20.1.1954, Sri Nalli Ramloo in turn has sold
away the land to an extent of (510) acres to
the president Forest Association, Mancherial
on 16.3.1969. The President Forest
Association Mancherial has donated the area
of (510) acres and an extent of (032) gts to
the Z.P., High School, Mancherial for play
ground and the land in question at present
being used as play ground. The question of
having possession by the appellants is
baseless. Thus the P.T. & L.Rs. of PT have
3
alienated the land to others and contraversed
the provisos of section 48A and 40 of the AP
(TA) Tenancy and Agril. Lands Act 1950. For
the violation of condition by the L.Rs. of P.T.
the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial has
cancelled the P.T. rights of the P.T. vide
MRO, Proc.No. A/2148/90 dt. 6.10.90, L.Rs.
of the protected tenant not all cultivated the
land as they have also sold the land to Sri
Thoutam Veeramallu and to others. The L.Rs.
of P.T. have violated the condition (19) of the
AP(TA) Tenancy & Agricultural lands Act.
1950.
In view of the above, I do not find
reason to interfere with the orders of the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial order
dated 6.10.90 and the appeal is dismissed.”
7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order dated
20.06.1998 and filed a revision petition in the High
Court. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed
the revision petition and review petition also, which
has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of
special leave by the appellants in this Court.
8. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was right in dismissing the revision petition and
the review petition and upholding the orders impugned
therein.
4
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case including the
written submissions filed by the parties, we find no
merit in these appeals.
11. In our considered opinion, the order passed by
Mandal Revenue Officer, Joint Collector as an
Appellate Court and lastly, the High Court in its
revisionary jurisdiction rightly dealt with the issue
arising in the case against the appellants in relation to
the suit land.
12. All the three Courts held and, in our view, rightly
that a clear case of violation of terms of grant and the
provisions of Section 19 read with Sections 40 and
48A of the Act has been made out against the
appellants. It was held that the appellants instead of
cultivating the suit land transferred it to several
persons for other purpose which was against the grant
and the provisions of the Act. The appellants, however,
5
failed to prove otherwise despite affording them an
opportunity to file reply.
13. In our view, a clear case of contravention of terms
of grant read with Sections 19, 40 and 48A of the
Act is made out against the appellants. We find no
good ground to take any other view than the one taken
by the Courts below on the facts found proved.
14. On perusal of the written submissions also, we
are unable to notice any point worth taking note of to
disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
three Courts below.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals
have no merit. They are accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
February 27, 2019
6