EDUKANTI KISTAMMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS. versus S. VENKATAREDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 03-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)· 
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 47 
EDUKANTI KISTAMMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
S. VENKATAREDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1664 of 2004) 
DECEMBER 3, 2009 
[TARUN CHAlTERJEE AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & 
Agricultural Lands) Act, 1950 - s. 38-E -
Ownership 
Cerlificates under -
To protected tenants - Objection to -
C 
Objector claiming purchase of the suit properly from the 
original tenure holder and on basis of surrender of tenancy 
by one of the tenants - Revenue court dismissing the 
objection upholding status of protected tenancy - Appellate 
authority declaring that predecessors of appellant Nos. 1 and D 
3 were protected tenants and remanded the case to Revenue 
Coult to decide as to whether the surrender of tenancy by one 
tenant was in confirmity of the provisions of the Act - Grant 
of restoration of posession in favour of appellant nos. 1 and 
3 attained fianlity - On remand, Revenue Coult holding the E 
surrender not in conformity of the statutory provisions -
Appellate authority confirming the order - In revision, High 
Coult holding that grant of Ownership Certificates were not 
correct - On appeal, held: It was not permissible for the High 
Coult to reopen the issue either of grant or issuance of F 
cerlificate or deal with the issue of restoration of possession 
- The Act being beneficial legislation should not be construed 
in favour of deprivation of right of a person to properly -
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Beneficial legislation -
G 
Interpretation of - Held: Such legislation to be construed 
liberally so as to make it effective and operative and to further 
the ends of justice and not to frustrate the statute. 
47 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Practice and Procedure - Challenge to consequential 
"' 
order without challenging basic order or/statutory provision -
Not permissible. 
Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants claimed to 
8 be protected tenants and sought ownership certificates 
to become full owners of the suit land. Respondents 
objected to the issuance of the certificates u/s. 38-E of 
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, stating that they were the 
owners of the land as the same was purchased by their 
C father from the original tenure-holder of the land. 
Respondents placed reliance on a decree passed by a 
civil court in a suit between the original tenure-holder and 
their father. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) dismissed 
the objection, holding that the revenue records proved 
D that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were 
the protected tenants. Appellate authority dismissed the 
appeal affirming the finding that predecessor-in-interest 
of the appellants were protected tenants. However, it 
remanded the matter to RDO to examine as to whether 
E the alleged surrender of tenancy by predecessor-in-
interest of appellant No.2 was in conformity/consonance 
wlth the provisions of the Act. The order was not 
challenged further. 
F 
Application of appellant Nos.1 and 3 for restoration 
of possession was allowed. Writ petition against the 
order was also dismissed by High Court. After remand, 
RDO decided that surrender of tenancy by the 
predecessor-in-interest of appellant no.2 was not in 
G conformity with the provisions of the Act and the said 
tenant was entitled to approach Mandal Revenue Officer 
for restoration of possession. Appeal against this order 
was dismissed. Revision against the order of appellate 
Court was allowed by High Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
H 
EDUKANTI KISTAMMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. 
49 
.... 
S. VENKATAREDDY(DEAD)THR. LRS . 
... 
, _...,..\ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The scheme of the Andhra Pradesh 
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1950 provides that a person who is a protected tenant has 
a right to get the ownership in accordance with the B 
statutory provisions, provided the total area of the land 
owned by the landholder including the land under the 
'I 
cultivation of his tenants is more than three times the area 
of a family holding for the local area concerned. The 
person should be in lawful possession of the land on the c 
date of commencement of the 1950 Act to claim benefits 
thereunder. [Para 19] [68-D-E] 
1.2. The Government has to make a declaration by 
publishing the notification in the Gazette in respect of any 
area and f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.