BODDAM NARSIMHA versus HASAN ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY L.R. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1223 · Decided: 25-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BOD DAM NARSIMHA 
v. 
HASAN ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY L.R. & ORS. 
JANUARY 25, 2007 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H.KAPADIA, JJ) 
Tenancy and Land Laws: 
A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: 
Section 37-A-Protected tenancy-A partition suit was filed in respect 
of the suit land by one of the sons of the deceased landowner-One of the 
items of Schedule 'B' land was in possession of the tenants-One such 
tenant, 'B' was the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit land-He was 
inducted in the suit land under a kaulanama, which was executed by one 
of the sons of the deceased landowner-Initially it was for one year-It was 
renewed each year-It stated that on the expiry of the stipulated period 
the tenant would have no right over the land in possession-It further 
stated that 'B' would be the sole cultivator and that without the permission 
of the landlord, he would not include any other cultivator -The son sold 
his share to 'B' through a registered sale deed-The sale deed in favour 
of 'B' stood executed after the vendor obtained the permission under Ss. 
47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950-
Accordingly, 'B' became a pattedar in respect of the suit land-In the 
revenue records, the name of 'B' was shown as a pattedar-During his 
lifetime, 'B' did not claim to be a protected tenant under S. 37-A-Even his 
L.Rs did not claim that 'B' was a protected tenant in respect of the said 
land-For the first time, the nephew of 'B' sought a declaration that 'B' was 
a protected tenant under Section 37-A of the Act and accordingly claimed 
ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act after a lapse of more 
than 40 years-No explanation was given in the application by the 
nephew for not invoking Section 37-A of the Act for almost 40 years-The 
tribunal reported that there was no protected tenants in respect of the suit 
land and that the name of 'B' was never recorded as a protected tenant 
in respect of the suit land-It was further reported that 'B' was the pattedar, 
that he was cultivating the land .as pattedar and that he was cultivating 
as owner under the sale deed-The Tribunal dismissed the application-
1223 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
1224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.CR. 
The High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal-Held: S. 38-E has 
been enacted for those protected tenants who are declared to be protected 
tenants and included in the Register prepared for that purpose-'B' had 
become a pattedar (owner) under the sale deed-The protected tenancy 
has to be enforced on the notified date-Therefore, in any event, the 
assumed protected tenancy did not continue up to the notified date-The 
nephew of 'B' has not applied on the demise of 'B' for his name to be 
brought on record as L.R. of 'B' or on the basis of joint cultivation by his 
father and uncle-Therefore, the nephew was not entitled to the Ownership 
Certificate under S. 38-E-Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 
1950, Ss. 47 and 48-Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass 
Book Act, 1971, S. 4-Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Protected tenant"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 37-A of 
D 
the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 
A partition suit was filed in respect of the suit land by one of the sons 
of the deceased landowner. In the plaint it was stated that one of the items 
of Schedule 'B' land was in possession of the tenants. One such tenant, 'B', 
the paternal uncle of the appellant, was the cultivating tenant in respect of 
E 
the suit land. He was inducted in the suit land under a kaulanama, which 
was executed by one of the sons of the deceased landowner. Initially it was 
for one year. It was renewed each year. It stated that on the expiry of the 
stipulated period the tenant would have no right over the 
11and in possession. 
It further stated that 'B' would be the sole cultivator and that without the 
F 
permission of the landlord, he would not include any other cultivator. The 
son sold his share to 'B' through a registered sale deed. The sale deed in 
favour of 'B' stood executed after the vendor obtained the permission under 
Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 
1950. Accordingly, 'B' became a pattedar in respect of the suit land. In the 
G 
revenue records, the name of 'B' was shown as a pattedar. During his 
lifetime, 'B' did not claim to be a protected tenant under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.