KOTAIAN AND ANR. versus PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES (PVT.) LTD.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 21-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KOTAIAN AND ANR. 
v. 
PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES 
(PVT.) LTD. 
JULY 21, 1989 
[G.L. OZA, S. NATARAJAN AND K. JAGANNATHA 
SHETIY, JJ.] 
A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: Sections 
8, 19, 28, 32, 38(D) and 38(£)-Protected Tenant-Right to become 
~ -
C owner-Termination of Tenancy-Dispossession of-Land holders 
prohibited from alienating the tenanted land to their parties-First offer 
must be given to protected tenant-Alienation in contravention is illegal. 
The appellants were in possession of certain agricultural lands as 
tenants. Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vandru Padri were their landlords 
D 
who had left the country long ago. But it was alleged that the land was 
purchased for the benefit of American Baptist Formation Society and 
the respondents claim to be the Property Association of the Baptist 
Chun-hes (Pvt.) Ltd. ("The Association"). The land stood transferred 
to the Association as per order made by the Madras High Court in 
nHnpany petition. The Association thus claimed to be the owner and 
E 
also in defacto possession of the lands. 
In 1975 the Association issued notice u1s 19(2) of the Act terminat-
ing the appellant's tenancy on May 31, 1975. The appellants received 
the said notice but did not send any reply. Thereafter the Association 
moved the Tehsildar u/ss 19(2) read with 28(1) of the Act for the 
F 
symbolic possession of the lands from the appellants. Before the 
Tehsildar, appellants denied all the allegations and asserted that they 
were protected tenants. On Nov., 1977 Tehsildar made an order accept-
ing the contentions of the Association holding that the appellants had no 
right since their tenancy stood terminated. Appellants appeal was also 
dismissell by the Joint Collector, Warrangal. The appellants then 
G 
approached the High Court by way ofrevision petition u/s 91 of the Act. 
The High Court dismissed the revision. Thereafter appellants came up 
before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to appeal. 
Accepting the appeal, this Court, 
H 
HELD: That the contentions of the Association that it is in 
472 
.. 
~ 
-f r 
·} 
.. 
--1 
::~:,;a; 
·- .. ~' 
"""-
KOTAIAN v. BAPTJSFCHURCHES [SHETIY, J.J 
473 
det'acto possession and entitled to symbolic possession is unavailable 
arid indeed unacceptable, Firstly, there can not be any dispute in this 
case. about the protected tenancy rights of the appellants. The revenue 
documents like Pananipatrika and final record of Agric!lltural tenancy 
clearly establish thatthe appellants were recognised as protected ten-
ants. Secondly, it was not the case of the Association that Rev, Rutar 
Ford Padri and Vandru Padri first offered the land to the ·appellants 
before they transferred the same to the Association. The Court also 
observed that the Association cannot be permitted to take advantage of 
its high handedness. It is an exploitation of the exploited. It is an op-
pression of the oppressed. The Conrt cannot countenance it. [482F-G; 483B] 
Reversing the impugned orders the Court directed the Tehsildar 
to put the appellants in possession of the agricultural land in question 
within one month and ordered that the Association mnst pay the costs of 
the appellants quantified at Rs.20,000. [483C-D] · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2098 
A 
B 
c 
of 1980. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.1980 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 736 of 1980. 
K. Madhava Reddy, A.D.N. Rao, and A.Subba Rao for the 
Appellant. 
E 
U.R. Lalit, C.P. Sar.thy and A.T.M. Sampath for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal with leave arising 
out of a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh illustrates how 
the "land reform" and the progressive policy of "land to the tiller" 
could be defeated by vested interests and lukewarm attitude of statu-
tory authorities. 
The relevant facts. 
F 
G 
The appellants were in possession of certain agricultural lands as 
tenants. After coming into force of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy & Ag-
ricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('The Act"), they were recognised as pro-
tected tenants. A "protected tenant" means that he is protected from 
H 
A 
B 
c 
474 
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) 3 S.C.R. 
eviction. If he is dispossessed, the Tehsildar suo motu or on applica-
tion shall put him in possession. Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru 
Padri were admittedly their landlords. The appellants had no problem

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