THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. versus MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161 · Decided: 01-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS.
v.
MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2021)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 – ss.19, 38-E – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Protected tenant – Oral surrender
of the tenancy rights, if permissible – High Court set aside the order
dtd.19.2.82 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer granting
occupancy rights to predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-
purchaser as well as the order passed by Joint Collector dismissing
the appeal filed by the protected tenant – Occupancy rights granted
to the purchaser stood annulled – On appeal, held: Surrender of
oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the
Tenancy Act except in the manner prescribed u/s.38-E (5) r/w s.19,
Tenancy Act – In the present case, the oral surrender by the protected
tenant is set up in the year 1954 followed by sale of tenancy rights
in 1957 – Thereafter, the petition u/s.19, Tenancy Act was filed to
seek approval of the Tenancy rights, but was withdrawn on the
basis of an order withdrawing the appeal against the grant of
occupancy rights – Thus, the purchasers took steps to procure
surrender of tenancy rights, realizing that such surrender cannot
be oral or by executing a sale deed – It was a cover up operation
initiated by the purchaser – Since, neither the oral surrender nor
surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the
subsequent surrender approved by Mandal Revenue Officer is a
nullity as such surrender is in contravention of the statutory
provisions – Protected tenant was conferred ownership rights
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act on 23.3.75 whereas the conferment of
occupancy rights were granted in the year 1982 under the Inams
Act – On grant of certificate of ownership u/s.38-E, the protected
tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land – Once
the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be
any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of
1161
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act – Appeals allegedly filed by the protected
tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and
subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential – Title of
the protected tenants is complete and the ownership vests with them
– Entitled to restoration of possession.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 – ss.19, 32, 38-E – Held: Neither s.19 nor s.32
forming part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in
respect of protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of s.19 on the basis of s.38-E(5) which starts with a non
obstante clause giving overriding effect to anything contained in
s.38-E.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 – Operation of the Acts – Held: Both the Inams Act
and the Tenancy Act are enacted by the same Legislature – The
Inams Act is a later Act enacted in 1955 but s.38-E (1) was
substituted in 1971 which starts with a non- obstante clause–
Therefore, ownership certificate granted under the Tenancy Act
would prevail over the grant of occupancy rights certificate under
the Inams Act – Both the Acts operate in different spheres.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV
of the Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materially
different from that of tenants governed by Chapter III of the
Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at much higher
pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of the
land, right has been given to him to seek possession later.
Therefore, neither Section 19 nor Section 32 forming part of
Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of
protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5) which
starts with a non obstante clause giving overriding effect to
anything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates the
Collector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the
genuineness of the surrender of right made by the protected
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
tenant. This exercise had to be done before the surrender of
tenancy rig

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