IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4982 of 2008 Between: Samsani Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And: Vundavalli Seetharatnam & 2 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4982 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 08.09.2008 in ATA No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, where in the said appeal filed by the first respondent, was allowed setting aside the order dated 05.04.2007 in ATC No.19 of 2000 on the file of the Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, where under the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 16 of the A.P. Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, seeking declaration that he is a cultivating tenant of the schedule land and for consequential injunction, was allowed, declaring the petitioner as a cultivating tenant and for consequential injunction. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a cultivating tenant of the schedule land since 1993 and the rent is Rs.13,000/- per annum and that he raised sugar cane crop in the schedule land and he never committed default in payment of rents. He further pleads that 3rd respondent got issued a registered notice dated 09.10.1998 claiming that she is the co-sharer of the land and later she raised a dispute before the village elders and as per the advise of the elders, the petitioner paid half of the rent i.e., Rs.6500/- to 3rd respondent on 20.05.1999 and obtained receipt and the respondents 1 and 2 did not receive the balance rent from the petitioner, though he offered and got issued a notice falsely alleging that the petitioner was attempting to trespass into the land. The petitioner paid the share of rent of 3rd respondent for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 on 15.05.2000 and obtained receipt from her. He further alleged that the respondents have colluded and attempting to interfere with his possession. He filed the petition stating that he deposited the rents of respondents 1 and 2 equally for the year 1999-2000 into court in a sum of Rs.13,000/-. 4. The 3rd respondent remained ex-parte. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter opposing the application and contending that the petitioner is not the cultivating tenant of the schedule land and the petition is filed at the instance of 3rd respondent, who was colluding with the petitioner. They also contend that the alleged mediation and advise of the elders to pay half share to 3rd respondent is totally false and any such payment of rent did not create any tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner. They further pleaded that the 3rd respondent filed suit OS No.60 of 1998 against the respondents 1 and 2 for partition and the respondents 1 and 2 also filed OS No.21 of 1999 against 3rd respondent, which were pending and the petitioner was set up by the 3rd respondent collusively. 5. During enquiry before the Special Officer, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Special Officer held that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant of the schedule land from 1993 and as such is entitled for declaration and injunction prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeal ATA No.11 of 2007. 6. By impugned judgment, the appellate Tribunal reversed the finding of the Special Officer and allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Special Officer. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the impugned orders of the courts below would disclose that the Special officer allowed the application and held that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant based on the oral evidence of PWs.2 to 5, who are said to be the neighbouring land owners. On reappraisal of the very same evidence of PWs.2 to 5, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings of the Special Officer. Exs.A.1 to A.4 rent receipts under which the petitioner is said to have paid rents to 3rd respondent pertaining to her share are of no consequence, in view of the allegation of the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner was set up by the 3rd respondent collusively. The 3rd respondent remained ex-parte. Exs.A.5 to A.8 agreements with the sugar factory for supply of sugar cane were rightly rejected, as they did not contain the company seal nor the signature of the authorized signatory on behalf of the factory and no one connected with the sugar factory was also examined. Exs.A.5 to A.8 were rejected by the learned Special Officer himself stating that no reliance can be placed on them. 8. The petitioner, though claimed to be a cultivating tenant of the schedule land since 1993 having taken the same on lease from the respondents 1 and 2 on rent of Rs.13,000/- per annum, has not filed any document evidencing such lease or payment of any rent to the respondents 1 and 2 during the period of seven years from 1993 till filing of ATC in 2000. He adduced only oral evidence of PWs.2 to 5 who claim to be the neighbouring land owners. The Special Officer accepted the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 on the ground that RW.1 also stated that PWs.2 to 5 were having lands near the schedule land and she is not having any disputes with them. Admittedly, PWs.2 to 5 were not present at the time of the petitioner entering into the alleged lease transaction and having no personal knowledge of the alleged lease or terms thereof. The appellate Tribunal on reappraisal of the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 found that they are not reliable, as they could not say anything about the cultivation of the land by the petitioner and the crops raised by him in the schedule land. In the impugned order, the appellate Tribunal also observed that the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 discloses that they could not say the nature of the crops raised by the petitioner from 1993. The petitioner has also failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents 1 and 2 on one hand and the petitioner himself on the other, as no evidence is adduced in proof of the alleged tenancy. In the absence of any evidence establishing the tenancy between himself and the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is not entitled for declaration that he is a cultivating tenant. If really, the petitioner was cultivating the lands from 1993 as a tenant, his possession and cultivation, ought to have been reflected in the village records like No.2 account etc., but he has not produced any such documentary evidence. The appellate Tribunal has therefore rightly held that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a cultivating tenant of the schedule land and therefore, he is not entitled for declaration as prayed for. 9. The impugned order of the appellate Court allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Special Officer, does not therefore call for any interference. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.08.2011 bss