IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.4601of 2009 Between: Chandolu Devadas … Petitioner And: Panda Sridhar Babu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4601 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.08.2009 in ATA No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur, wherein, the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 13.07.2007 in ATC No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Tenancy Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, where under the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 16(1) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) to declare him as a cultivating tenant, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed application under Section 16(1) of the Act, for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule land and for permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment, till he is evicted by due process of law. According to the petitioner, the schedule land originally belonged to him and he sold the same under two registered sale deeds dated 02.11.1999 and 19.02.2000 and he again took the same on lease from the respondent agreeing to pay lease amount of Rs.5000/- per each item in advance in the month of March every year and the petitioner has been paying the same regularly. The petitioner alleges that due to disputes between himself and father of the respondent, the respondent refused to receive the lease amount for the year 2005-06 at the instigation of his father and they are trying to dispossess him forcibly. 4. The respondent filed a counter, contending that the schedule land was never given to the petitioner on lease, that the schedule land is full of mango, sapota and other fruit bearing trees. The respondent also planted eucalyptus and teak wood plants and there is no possibility to raise any other crop in the schedule land. The respondent further contended that as he was away on employment, his father used to look after the schedule land and used to sell usufruct of mango and sapota trees and that the petitioner was causing obstruction to the purchasers of usufruct to collect the produce. The respondent in his counter mentioned details regarding the sale of the usufruct and obstruction caused by the petitioner to the purchasers and the alleged acts of damage caused by the petitioner to the trees. The respondent denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner. He also stated that he filed suit in OS No.75 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tenali against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the land. 5. During enquiry before the Special Officer, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked on behalf of the respondent. During pendency of the appeal, Exs.P.3 to P.5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The Special Officer, by impugned order dated 13.07.2007, dismissed the application on the ground that the schedule land being a garden land, the provisions of Tenancy Act 1956 are not applicable and the petitioner cannot be termed as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal ATA No.6 of 2007 and the learned Principal District Judge, by impugned order, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision. 7. Both the Tribunals below on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record have held concurrently that the schedule land is an orchard and garden land and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. PW.1 also admitted in the evidence that there are fruit bearing trees like mango and sapota in the schedule land. All other witnesses examined by the petitioner i.e., PWs.2,3, 6 to 9 also admitted in their evidence about the existence of mango, sapota, Palmyra and other fruit bearing trees in the schedule land. PW.1 even admitted that in the year 2003, he purchased only usufruct. The evidence on record clearly established that the schedule land is having only fruit bearing trees of several varieties and is not a cultivable land. 8. Section 18 of the Act states that nothing contained in the Act shall apply inter-alia to orchards, where the tenancy is for the enjoyment only of the usufruct of the trees. In view of the above provision and that the schedule land being orchard and garden land, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the present case. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has taken the land on lease for the purpose of cultivation or that he raised any crops therein. The petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast on him to establish that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land. Admittedly, the alleged lease is not established by any document and no receipts for payment of rent are also filed. In the absence of any such evidence, the courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant of the schedule land. On the other hand, the evidence on record established that the land is garden land with fruit bearing trees and the respondent was selling usufruct every year to different persons. 9. The learned Principal District Judge, rightly rejected the copy of the adangal Ex.P.5 produced by the petitioner, as the same was not issued by a competent authority nor does it contain official seal. On the other hand, Exs.R.1 and R.2 sale deeds established that the land is only garden land and the respondent was selling usufruct every year. 10. It is stated that the suit OS No.75 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, is already filed by the respondent against the petitioner for recovery of possession alleging that the petitioner has trespassed into the schedule land and that it was subsequently, transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, and renumbered as OS No.22 of 2008 and the same is pending. 11. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned orders of the courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the provisions of the Act are not applicable and the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant of the schedule land, do not call for any interference. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.09.2011 bss