IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.112 of 2002 Between: Chikkam Durga Rao. … Petitioner And Rayulu Vendetta Suryanarayanamma & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao Counsel for the respondents: None The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.112 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 17.02.1997 in ATC.No.13 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Amalapuram as confirmed in order dated 30.11.2000 in ATA.No.40 of 1997 on the file of the appellate authority under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner filed ATC.No.13 of 1993 on the file of respondent No.3 under Sections 16(1) and 10 of the Act for declaration of his rights as cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.2.20 cents in R.S.No.131/17, Ac.1.81 cents in R.S.No.131/10 and Ac.0.49 cents in R.S.No.188 of Uppalaguptam Village, East Godavari District. According to the petitioner, he has taken the abovementioned land on lease in May 1991 in the presence of Kanakala Doraya and Chikkam Ganga Raju, that the agreed rent was 31 ½ bags of paddy per annum payable at the end of January every year for both the crops, that the land was in a low lying area and there was no assurance for the first crop and that the tax for the first crop was to be paid by respondent No.1 and by the petitioner for the second crop. It is the further case of the petitioner that the land originally belonged to one Rayudu Satyavati, mother-in-law of respondent No.1 and she settled the land in favour of respondent No.1, that the petitioner paid the rents without committing any default and that respondent No.1 proposed to sell the land to respondent No.2 and when the petitioner refused to vacate the land, respondent No.1 attempted to dispossess him from the land forcibly. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner he examined himself as PW.1 and examined PWs.2 and 3 on his behalf. Respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.1 apart from examining RW.2 on his behalf. The petitioner filed tax receipt for Fasli 1396 to 1402 marked as Ex.A.1, while on behalf of respondent No.1 Exs.B1 to B3 are marked. Having regard to the rival pleadings, respondent No.3 has framed the following points for consideration. “1. Whether the petitioner is a cultivating tenant for the schedule land under Respondent No.1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief of declaration that he is the statutory tenant for the schedule land and permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief in directing the respondent No.4 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner? 4. To what relief?” After a full-fledged trial, respondent No.3 held against the petitioner on all the points and dismissed the ATC. On the appeal filed by the petitioner, respondent No.4 confirmed the order of respondent No.3. At the hearing, Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have failed to appreciate the evidence from proper perspective in rejecting the petitioner’s claim that he is a tenant of respondent No.1. I have carefully perused both the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and I am satisfied that both the respondents, on appreciation of evidence, have given convincing reasons to reject the claim of the petitioner. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence in order to arrive at a different conclusion from the one reached by the Tribunals. Unless patent illegality or perversity in the orders questioned in the writ petition is pointed out, this Court seldom interferes with the orders passed by the Tribunals/Quasi Judicial authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any such defects in the orders passed by both the Tribunals below. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.123 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.07.2010. ES