Case: Kotaian And Anr Vs. Property Association Of Baptist Churches(Pvt.) Ltd

such notice. If there is any dispute about the reasonable price payable by the protected tenant for the land, the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 38 shall apply mutatis mutandis(2) If the protected tenant does not exercise the right of purchase in response to the notice given to him by the landholder under sub-section (1) such protected tenant shall forfeit his right of purchase of the same and the landholder shall be entitled to sell such land to any other person. On such a purchase by any other person, the protected tenant shall forfeit all his rights in the land save those provided for in Section 41." 20. Section 38-E provides: "38-E. Ownership of lands held by protected tenants to stand transferred to them from a notified date. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter or any law for the time being in force or any custom, usage, judgment, decree, contract or grant to the contrary, the government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, declare in respect of any area and from such date as may be specified therein, that ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their landholder in such area under any provision of this chapter shall, subject to the condition laid down in sub-section (7) of Section 38, stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such landsProvided that where in respect of any such land any proceeding under Section 19 or Section 32 or Section 44 is pending on the date so notified, the transfer of ownership of such land shall take effect on the date, on which such proceeding is finally decided, and when the tenant retains possession of the land in accordance with the decision in such proceeding.Explanation. - If a protected tenant, on account of his being dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tehsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date of he notification issued hereunder, then for the purpose of the sub-section, such protected tenant shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal or other authority, be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of the notification; and accordingly, the Tehsildar shall notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suo motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry, and direct that such land in possession of the landholder or any person claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from the possession of the landholder or such person, as the case may be, and shall be restored to the protected tenant and the provisions of this section shall apply thereto in every respect as if the protected tenant has held the land on the date of such notification." 21. This then is the main structure of the Act. 22. In sum. (i) The protected tenant has a right to become full owner of the lands in his possession. He becomes the owner when the government issues a notification under Section 38-E. We are told that the government had issued such a notification on October 1, 1973, relating to the district where the lands in question are situated. It was about three years earlier to termination of the appellants tenancy by the Association. If the appellants had right to become owners of the tenanted lands, the question of terminating their tenancy would not arise(ii) The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, the Tehsildar either suo motu or on application must hold a summary inquiry, and direct that the land be restored to the protected tenant. That is the mandate of Section 38-E and the Explanation thereof.(iii) The landholder by himself cannot dispossess the protected tenant even if the tenancy is terminated in accordance with the law. The landlord will have to take recourse to Section 32. He must approach the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit.(iv) Section 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. The alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legal effect." 23. So return to the case. The contention of the Association that it is in de facto possession and entitled to symbolic possession is unavailable and indeed, unacceptable. Firstly, there cannot be any dispute in this case about the protected tenancy rights of the appellants. The revenue documents like Pahanipatrika and final record of agricultural tenancy clearly establish that the appellants were recognised as protected tenants. Secondly, it was not the case of the Association that Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri first offered the land to the appellants before they transferred the same to the Association. Therefore, in the light of the statutory provisions to which we have called attention, the Associations title cannot be said to be legitimate. 24. Counsel for the Association also appeared to have anticipated this inevitable result. He made an impassioned appeal for leave to withdraw the original petition filed before the Tehsildar. He perhaps wanted to give quietus to these proceedings, leaving the appellants free to agitate their rights elsewhere. 25. But we cannot agree with him. We cannot also accede to his request. The Association cannot be permitted to take advantage of its highhandedness. It is an exploitation of the exploited. It is an oppression of the oppressed. The court cannot countenance it.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]i) The protected tenant has a right to become full owner of the lands in his possession. He becomes the owner when the government issues a notification under Section 38-E. We are told that the government had issued such a notification on October 1, 1973, relating to the district where the lands in question are situated. It was about three years earlier to termination of the appellants tenancy by the Association. If the appellants had right to become owners of the tenanted lands, the question of terminating their tenancy would not arise(ii) The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, the Tehsildar either suo motu or on application must hold a summary inquiry, and direct that the land be restored to the protected tenant. That is the mandate of Section 38-E and the ExplanationThe landholder by himself cannot dispossess the protected tenant even if the tenancy is terminated in accordance with the law. The landlord will have to take recourse to Section 32. He must approach the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry and pass such order as he deemsSection 38-D prohibits the landholder from alienating the tenanted land to third parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land, he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenant. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. The alienation made in contravention of these provisions has no legalSo return to the case. The contention of the Association that it is in de facto possession and entitled to symbolic possession is unavailable and indeed, unacceptable. Firstly, there cannot be any dispute in this case about the protected tenancy rights of the appellants. The revenue documents like Pahanipatrika and final record of agricultural tenancy clearly establish that the appellants were recognised as protected tenants. Secondly, it was not the case of the Association that Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri first offered the land to the appellants before they transferred the same to the Association. Therefore, in the light of the statutory provisions to which we have called attention, the Associations title cannot be said to beBut we cannot agree with him. We cannot also accede to his request. The Association cannot be permitted to take advantage of its highhandedness. It is an exploitation of the exploited. It is an oppression of the oppressed. The court cannot countenance