LexB. BAL REDDY versus TEEGALA NARAYANA REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016) 4 S.C.R. 62 B. BAL REDDY v. TEEGALA NARAYANA REDDY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7998of2016) AUGUST 12, 2016 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1960 - s.38- D - Alienation of tenanted land to third parties - Held: In view of s.38-D of the Act, the land must first be offered to the Protected Tenant and only when the Protected Tenant does not exercise the right of purchase, can the land holder sell the land to any other person - Transactions entered without following the procedure in s.J8-D are without legal effect - In absence of valid termination of protected tenancy, the interest of Protected Tenant continue to be operative and dev.olves on his legal heirs who can then claim restoration of possession - Mere loss of possession by itself would not terminate 'protected tenancy' - Land laws -Agricultural Tenancy. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Section 38-D of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed when land holder intends to sell the land held by a Protected Tenant. Accordingly the land must first be offered by issuing a notice in writing to the Protected Tenant and it is only when the Protected Tenant does not exercise the right of purchase in accordance with the procedure, that the land holder can sell such land to any other person. [Para 10] [[66-F-G] Kotaiah i' Property Assn of Baptist Churches (Pvt.) Ltd 1989 (3) SCR 472 : (1989) 3 SCC 424 - relied on. 2.1. It is not the case of appellants that alienations effected by the landholders were in conformity with aforesaid provision. The appellate authority was therefore right in holding that the appellants had no locus standi. It, however, erred in considering the merits of the matter despite having rendered such a finding on the issue of locus standi. Thus, all transactions entered into without following the procedure prescribed in Section 38-D of 62 B. BAL REDDY v. TEEGALA NARAYANA REDDY 63 the Act were without any legal effect. [Para 11) [67-C) A Sada v. Tehsildar AIR (1988) AP 77 - approved. Roddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan (2007) 11 SCC 410 - referred to. 2.2. It is well settled that the interest of a Protected Tenant continues to be operative and subsisting so long as 'protected tenancy' is not validly terminated. Even if such Protected Tenant has lost possession of the land in question, that by itself does not terminate the 'protected tenancy'. It is not the case of appellants that the Protected Tenancy was terminated in a manner known to law. In the absence of such valid termination of 'protected tenancy', the interest of such Protected Tenant continued to be operative and subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and representatives who could then claim restoration of possession. 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. The view taken by the High Court in allowing Revision Petitions in favour of respondents herein was perfectly right and justified. [Paras 12 and 13) [67-D-E; 68-D-EJ Case Law Reference 1989 (3) SCR 472 AIR (1988) AP 77 (2007) 11 sec 410 relied on approved referred to Para 10 Paras 8, 12 Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7998 B c D E of2016. F From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2010 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 4904 of2006 WITH C. A. Nos. 7996 and 7997 of 2016. Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph (For Mis. Lawyer S. Knit & Co.), Ad vs. for the Appellant. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., D. Mahesh Babu, Ms. Suchitra G H 64 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R. Hrangkhwal, Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. I. Leave granted. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 06.08.20 I 0 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.4904/2006 and in Civil Revision Petition Nos.447 of2007 and 448 of 2007 which were disposed of on the same date in terms of the judgment and order in Civil Revision Petition No.4904 of2006. Since the High Court had considered Civil Revision Petition No
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.