IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH (18TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3205 of 2007 Between: Anaparthi Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner And: Valluri Krishna Veni & others …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3205 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2007 in ATA No.6 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge (Appellate Authority), Rajahmundry, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Special Officer (Principal Junior Civil Judge) on 24.07.2006 in ATC No.10 of 2002, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein was allowed granting relief of declaration that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant of the schedule land and also granting permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed ATC No.10 of 2002 alleging in brief as follows: The respondents 2 and 3 are the daughters of the first respondent. The first respondent, who is residing at Kaleru village, is the owner of item No.1 of the schedule property; 2nd respondent, who is residing at Rajahmundry is the owner of item No.2 and 3rd respondent who is resident of Kakinada, is the owner of item No.3 of the schedule property. The petitioner has taken the schedule land on lease in the year 1992 on a rent of Rs.1500/- per acre per year payable in January and has been cultivating the same. The petitioner got a bore well dug and obtained electricity service connection in the name of first respondent. He also constructed a building in the name of first respondent, bearing No.3-41, which is having domestic service connection bearing No.237. The petitioner obtained separate service connection bearing No.26726 for item 2 of the schedule land in the name of 2nd respondent. He also dug a bore well in item 3 and has been paying the electricity consumption charges and also land revenue. The petitioner transplanted paddy in item 1 and prepared seed bed in items 2 and 3 for transplantation. The first respondent entered into sale transaction with her daughter, wife of the petitioner in respect of item 1. Due to misunderstandings in the family, the respondents joined hands and tried to evict the petitioner by interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. 4. The respondents filed counter contending in brief as follows: There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the petitioner. The petitioner approached the first respondent with a proposal to establish poultry farm and sought land of Ac.8.28½ cents situated in RS Nos.178, 179 and 192 for lease. The first respondent agreed for the same and executed two registered lease deeds dated 01.02.1996 and 26.04.1996 in favour of the petitioner for a period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2007 and also from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2027. The said lands are different from the schedule land. Items 2 and 3 were given to the respondents 2 and 3 at the time of their marriage in 1993 and 1998 respectively and ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. None of the schedule lands were leased out to the petitioner for rent of Rs.1500/- per acre per annum. Sugar cane and coconut garden is raised in the land and the prevailing rent in the vicinity is Rs.10,000/- per annum per acre. Items 2 and 3 are having source of irrigation under bore well and the prevailing maktha for the said land is 25 bags of paddy per acre. The first respondent never intended to alienate item 1. The respondents themselves are cultivating the schedule lands. The petitioner is not the cultivating tenant and therefore, he is not entitled for declaration or for injunction prayed for. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.23 were marked on behalf of the respondents. The learned Special Officer held that there is every possibility of the petitioner cultivating the schedule land, as admittedly, the respondents are residing away from the schedule village and drawing a presumption in favour of the petitioner, granted declaration that he is cultivating tenant and also granted the relief of injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred appeal in ATA No.6 of 2006. By impugned judgment, the learned District Judge cum Appellate Authority, reversed the findings of the Special Officer and allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the application. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner is not stranger to the family of the respondents and he is none else than the son in law of first respondent he having married 5th daughter of first respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 are also daughters of first respondent. The schedule land comprises three items i.e., item No.1 measuring Ac.6.69 cents in RS No.196/1; Item No.2 measuring Ac.6.37 cents in RS No.337/2; and item No.3 measuring Ac.9.13 cents in RS No.218. According to the petitioner, all the three items were given on lease to him in the year 1992 on the rent of Rs.1500/- per acre per annum. It is not disputed that the schedule lands are having irrigation source through bore well and sugarcane and paddy crops are raised thereon. Admittedly, there is no document evidencing the lease of the schedule land in favour of the petitioner. He has also not filed copies of the adangals showing his cultivation of the schedule lands. He has not filed any village accounts to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land as a cultivating tenant. He filed Ex.A.1 bunch of 4 electricity receipts pertaining to SC No.25823; Ex.A.2 bunch of five electricity receipts pertaining to SC No.26726, which are admittedly in the name of respondents 1 and 2. Ex.A.3 is the land revenue receipt, which is in the name of first respondent. Exs.A.4 and A.5 are bunch of land revenue receipts in the name of respondents 2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 to 3 being owners of the schedule land, service connections stood in their name and therefore, the receipts for payment of the electricity consumption charges were also issued in the name of the respondents as also land revenue receipts. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is none else than the son in law of first respondent, custody of electricity receipts and land revenue receipts with the petitioner does not lead to any inference that he was the cultivating tenant of the schedule land. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that the amounts covered by those receipts were paid by the petitioner. If one is to go by probability, it is equally probable that the petitioner being son in law of first respondent and brother in law of respondents 2 and 3, who was looking after payment of the electricity charges and land revenue receipts and therefore custody of those receipts remains with him. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner paid the said amounts from his funds on the instructions of the respondents and as a part of the lease arrangement from the mere custody of the respective receipts with the petitioner, tenancy in his favour cannot be interfered. If really, the petitioner was cultivating the lands as a tenant since 1992 as claimed by him, the same would have been borne-out by the adangals and other village accounts wherein the name of the person in possession and the name of the cultivator will be specifically noted. The petitioner has not filed any such village accounts for the period of nearly 10 years, though he claims to be cultivating tenant since about 10 years prior to filing of the ATC. On the other hand, Exs.B.10 to 13 adangal accounts filed by the respondents for the year 2000-01 i.e., fasli 1410 would show the cultivation of the schedule land by the respondents by the date of filing of the ATC. Exs.B.10 to B.12 would therefore establish the physical possession of the schedule lands with the respondents and in the absence of any evidence to the contra, the claim of the petitioner that he is in possession of the schedule land as a cultivating tenant remains unsubstantiated. 8. The respondents have also filed Exs.B.6, 16 and 17 receipts showing payment of the electricity charges. Admittedly, the service connections are in the name of the respondents. Ex.A.8 electricity pass book is in the name of 2nd respondent. If really, the petitioner was cultivating the schedule land as a tenant since 1992, as rightly pointed by the learned District Judge over the period of 10 years, there would have been hundreds of receipts showing payment of electricity charges every month, but only a handful of such receipts were filed by the petitioner and there is no explanation as to what happened to the remaining receipts. The learned District Judge after careful scrutiny of the land revenue receipts and others documents filed by the respondents held that the petitioner failed to establish that he was the cultivating tenant of the schedule land. Each and every document filed by both parties has been carefully analyzed by the learned District Judge and the same does not call for reappraisal of the evidence in the present proceedings. Exs.B.3 to 5, 19 to 23 are the agreements between the respondents and the sugar factory regarding supply of sugar cane during the period 2000-01 and 2001-02 and they would also establish the cultivation of the schedule land by the respondents and supply of sugar cane by them to the sugar factory. Ex.B.18 is the payment details issued by the sugar factory showing payment of amounts towards value of the sugar cane to the respondents. The learned District Judge cum Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the Special Officer has committed a grave error in ignoring the documentary evidence produced by the respondents disproving the claim of the petitioner that he is cultivating tenant. In view of the voluminous document, any evidence adduced by the respondents in support of their claim, the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner, was rightly rejected by the appellate Authority. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner obtained Ac.10.00 of land from the first respondent for the purpose of running poultry farm, which is distinct and different from the schedule land. The petitioner obtained lease deeds Exs.B.1 and B.2 from the first respondent regarding the said land. There is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner has not chosen to obtain similar lease deeds in respect of the schedule lands also, if really he has taken the schedule lands on lease as claimed by him. The contention of the petitioner that because of the close relationship, he did not obtain the lease deeds for the schedule lands does not stand to scrutiny, as the same relationship did not come in the way of his obtaining registered lease deed in respect of other extent of Ac.10.00 taken on lease for the purpose of poultry farm. The learned Appellate Authority (District Judge) on proper reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record rightly set aside the findings of the Special Officer and rejected the claim of the petitioner that he is cultivating the schedule land. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment allowing the appeal and consequently dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, does not therefore call for any interference. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 18.08.2011 bss