THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.4206 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioners are the tenants, in respect of an agricultural land, owned by the respondents. When there was some dispute, as to the relationship of the parties, the father of the petitioners filed A.T.C.No.30 of 1988, to declare him as cultivating tenant. The A.T.C. was allowed and the order passed in it, has become final. The petitioners filed A.T.C.No.40 of 1992 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, claiming the relief of remission of rent, for the crop year 1991-92. They pleaded that, due to the cyclone that came in the month of November, 1991, the whole crop was damaged, and that they be granted the remission of payment of maktha of 22½ bags. The trial Court dismissed the A.T.C., through its order, dated 07-09-2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed A.T.A.No.33 of 2000, before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinda. The appeal was dismissed on 18-06-2004. Hence, this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court dismissed the A.T.C., on technical grounds, through there was no dispute, that cyclone hit the area, in October and November, 1991. He further submits that the report of the Commissioner is disregarded. Though notices were served upon the respondents, none appears for them. The petitioners are very much aware of their obligation to pay the maktha, on or before 15th of January, every year. They did not pay the maktha for the year 1991-92, and prayed for remission. Much of the pleadings before the trial Court were devoted to the litigation, that ensued for declaration of their father, as cultivating tenant. The A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) does provide for remission of rent, subject to certain conditions. Section 8 of the Act stipulates the circumstances under which, the remission can be granted. The first and foremost requirement under that provision is that, an application for remission must be made 15 days before the crop is cut and removed. There is a specific purpose underlying the requirement. The verification of the allegation, as to failure and damage to the crop can be undertaken only before it is harvested. If the crop is taken away, nothing remains to be verified. Admittedly, the application, in the instant case, was made six to seven months, after the harvest, or the occurrence of cyclone. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in K. Ramulu v. Suvarneswaraswamy Temple1, it is urged that, if the circumstances do not permit of the filing of application with such timeframe, the Court can relax the condition. It is urged that, on account of cyclone, the entire crop was washed away. It is not as if the petitioners did not harvest anything. They have to wait, at least for few weeks, after the cyclone recedes, to harvest the crop. No effort was made by the petitioners to approach the Court, immediately before harvesting, if not 15 clear days, before that. They did not even choose to issue a notice to the respondents. The petitioners appear to have been emboldened by the fact that, once their father is declared as a cultivating tenant, they can enjoy the property, without the necessity of paying the rent, by pleading lame excuses. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have recorded specific findings, that the petitioners did not make out a case for remission. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-08-2009. KO 1 1981 (1) ALT.228