Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to agricultural land measuring Ac.13.02 guntas in Survey No.92, Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey No.93, and 28 guntas in Survey No.95 in Garmilla Village, Mancherial Adilabad. The land was originally held by Gaddam Durgaiah as a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Upon his death, his sons (the appellants) inherited the land. However, instead of cultivating it, they transferred the land to several persons who constructed buildings on it. A show cause notice under Section 19 of the Act was issued to the appellants, but they failed to respond. Consequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled their protected tenancy rights on 06.10.1990. The appellants appealed to the Joint Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 20.06.1998, finding that the appellants had alienated the land in violation of Sections 48A and 40 of the Act. The appellants then filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 21.02.2007, and a review petition was also dismissed on 29.01.2008. The Supreme Court, in the present appeals, examined whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision. The Court held that all three forums rightly found a clear violation of the terms of grant and the provisions of Sections 19, 40, and 48A of the Act. The appellants failed to prove otherwise despite being given an opportunity. The Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Protected Tenancy - Cancellation of Rights - Sections 19, 40, 48A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Appellants, as legal representatives of a protected tenant, transferred agricultural land to third parties for non-agricultural purposes, violating the terms of grant - The Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled their rights after a show cause notice, which was upheld by the Joint Collector and the High Court - Held that the concurrent findings of violation were correct and no interference was warranted (Paras 3-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the revision petition and upholding the cancellation of protected tenancy rights for violation of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Joint Collector, and High Court, which cancelled the appellants' protected tenancy rights for violating Sections 19, 40, and 48A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Law Points
- Violation of terms of grant under Section 19 read with Sections 40 and 48A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1950
- Cancellation of protected tenancy rights for unauthorized alienation
- Concurrent findings of fact not disturbed in appeal
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos.8367-8367 of 2010
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Joint Collector, Adilabad District & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against dismissal of revision petition and review petition by High Court regarding cancellation of protected tenancy rights.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the orders cancelling their protected tenancy rights and restore the allotment of land.
Filing Reason
Appellants' protected tenancy rights were cancelled for transferring agricultural land to third parties for non-agricultural purposes, violating the Act.
Previous Decisions
Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled rights on 06.10.1990; Joint Collector dismissed appeal on 20.06.1998; High Court dismissed revision on 21.02.2007 and review on 29.01.2008.
Issues
Whether the appellants violated the terms of grant and provisions of Sections 19, 40, and 48A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 by alienating the suit land.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference by the Supreme Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the orders of cancellation were erroneous and that they had not violated the Act.
Respondents contended that the appellants had alienated the land in contravention of the Act and the concurrent findings were correct.
Ratio Decidendi
A protected tenant who alienates agricultural land in violation of the terms of grant and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, particularly Sections 19, 40, and 48A, is liable to have their tenancy rights cancelled. Concurrent findings of fact by multiple courts on such violation will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
In our considered opinion, the order passed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Joint Collector as an Appellate Court and lastly, the High Court in its revisionary jurisdiction rightly dealt with the issue arising in the case against the appellants in relation to the suit land.
All the three Courts held and, in our view, rightly that a clear case of violation of terms of grant and the provisions of Section 19 read with Sections 40 and 48A of the Act has been made out against the appellants.
Procedural History
The Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the appellants' protected tenancy rights on 06.10.1990. The appellants appealed to the Joint Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 20.06.1998. The appellants then filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 21.02.2007. A review petition was also dismissed on 29.01.2008. The appellants then filed special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, which were converted into civil appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: 19, 40, 48A
