Case: Dokiseela Ramulu Vs. Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu

2. The present controversy admittedly relates to 1 acre and 80-1/2 cents of agricultural land. Out of the above land, 33-1/2 cents is in Survey No.123/5, and the remaining 1 acre and 47 cents is in Survey No.129/2, of the revenue estate of Sangam Agraharam Village in Vangana Mandal, Srikakulam District, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the case of the appellant before this Court, that he is a poor landless person, and that, his family has been in occupation of the above land for many years. In fact, it is thecase, that his forefathers had been cultivating the above land, which eventually passed on to him, and members of his joint family.3. The Rent Reduction Act was applied to Sangam Agraharam Village vide G.O.M.S.No.3724 dated 31.03.1950. As indicated above, the land in question was a part of Sangam Agraharam village. Sangam village was declared as an ‘InamThe State Government notified Sangam Agraharam village, under Section 3 of the 1948 Act, vide Notification No.28 dated 17.01.1959. It is not a matter of dispute, that the land which is subject matter of the instant controversy, was notified and published in Part-I of the State of Andhra Pradesh Gazette, under the 1948 Act.5. On 25.02.1959, the notified land in Sangam Agraharam village, was taken over by the State Government. The appellant, and before him, his forefathers were cultivating tenants in respect of the land in question, for many years prior to the taking over of the above land/estate, by the State Government. On and with effect from the notified date, the landlord and tenant relationship between the appellant and the erstwhile landlord – respondent no.1 (– Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu) herein, therefore, stood terminated statutorily. The landlords right thereafter, was only limited to compensation. Possession of such lands, was also transferred to the State Government, except land in possession of persons entitled to a. A cultivating tenant was entitled to, under Section 11 of the 1948 Act. In order to demonstrate the position, as expressed hereinabove, Sections 3 and 11 of the said Act, are being extractedConsequences of Notification of estate:-- With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act-(a) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802, the Estates Land Act, and all enactments applicable to the estate as such except the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947, shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the estate;(b) the entire estate (including minor inams (post-settlement or pre-settlement) included in the assets of the zamindari estate at the permanent settlement of that estate; all communal lands and porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation works; fisheries; and ferries), shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances; and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate;(c) all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the Government cease and determine;(d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate, and all accounts, registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans and other documents relating to that estate which the Government may require for the administration thereof:Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta –(i) if such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;(ii) if such person is a landholder pending the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;(e) the principal or any other landholder and any other person whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c), shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act;(f) the relationship of landholder and ryot shall as between them, be extinguished;(g) ryots in the estate and persons holding under them shall, as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on them by or under this Act, and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in the estate before the notified date against the principal or any other landholder thereof shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such landholder.xxx xxx xxx11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta :-Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of –(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July, 1939;Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by a landholder on or after the first day of July, 1945 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land.Explanation:-- No lessee of any lanka and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before the notified date, including an jaradar or a farmer on rent, shall be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of such land under thissupplied)6. The appellant having felt threatened of being dispossessed from the above agricultural land, over which he was a, filed Original Suit No.32/1974 before the District Munsif, at Palakonda. The appellant prayed for a declaration, that the land in question, was a part of Sangam Agraharam village, to which the Rent Reduction Act had been applied vide G.O.M.S.No.3724 dated 31.03.1950, and further, that Sangam Agraharam village was an ‘Inamwithin the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and hence, was subject to the provisions of the 1948 Act. And that, the ‘Inamstood abolished after the enactment of the 1948 Act. The appellant also prayed for an injunction, so as to restrain the erstwhile landlord – respondent no.1 (– Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu) from interfering with the appellants possession.7. Simultaneously, Suit No.73/1974 was filed by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, asserting that the deity Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu – respondent no.1, was the absolute owner of the land in question, situated in Sangam Agraharam village. It was also the case of the Devasthanam, that the appellant was inducted into the above land, at an agreed rent of Rs.103-78 per year. It was the case of Devasthanam, that the appellant had executed a kadapa (rent-deed) in favour of the Devasthanam, on 29.11.1970. And that, the appellant had been cultivating the above land as a tenant under, the Devasthanam. Since the appellant had allegedly failed to pay rent for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73, despite several demands made by the Devasthanam, the above suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.311-34 being rent/damages, for use of the land in question, and also, for interest and cost thereon.8. In Original Suit No.32/1974, filed by the appellant, the following issues wereWhether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?2. Whether the suit is framed is not maintainable?3. To whatThe following additional issue is framed onthe plaintiff is entitled for the declaration prayed in theIn Suit No.73/1974, filed by respondent no.1, the following issues wereWhether the plaintiff is entitled to collect rents from the defendant?2) Whether the defendant acquired occupancy rights over the lands for which rent is claimed?3) To whatBoth the above suits were clubbed together. Evidence was recorded in Original Suit No.32/1974, whereupon, it was held, that the appellant was a cultivating tenant in respect of the above agricultural land, long prior to the notified date (-17.01.1959), and that, the appellant had occupancy rights over the above land, prior to taking over of the ‘Inamby the State Government, under the 1948 Act. And further that, with effect from the notified date – 17.01.1959, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the erstwhile landowner Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu – respondent no.1, and the ryot stood terminated. And that, the appellant was entitled to aor the suit land. This determination was recorded in Original Suit No.32/74, consequent upon the appellant being able to establish the above position, through the evidence of an(P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively), of the temple in question. The appellant was also able to demonstrate, that the appellant and his predecessors-in-interest, were cultivating tenants of the suit land, long prior to the notified date – 17.01.1959. It is in the aforesaid view of the matter, that Original Suit No.32/1974 came to be decreed.11. As against the above, the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, could not establish the execution of the alleged rent deed (kadapa), dated 29.11.1970, in favour of the appellant. And as such, the Devasthanam could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, between Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu and the appellant, as alleged. It was therefore, that Suit No.73/1974 was dismissed. The judgment and decree in Original Suit Nos.32/1974 and 73/1974 were passed on 31.10.1977.

Court's reasoning:
We are satisfied, thatSection 82 of the 1987 Act, is inapplicable to the present controversy, because the appellant cannot be treated as a lease holder of agricultural land belonging to, or given, or endowed for purpose of any institution or endowment, subsisting on the date of commencement of the 1987 Act, namely, on 21.04.1987. The above position also emerges from the dismissal of Suit No.73/1974 filed by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, wherein the assertion made on behalf of Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu, that there existed a landlord tenant relationship with the appellant herein, on the basis of an alleged kadapa (rent-deed) dated 29.11.1970, was rejected. The aforesaid finding admittedly assumed finality between the parties. For the above reason, the reliance placed on the judgment in the Muddada Chayanna case (supra), is of no avail to the respondent institution, because in the above judgment the undisputed position noticed in paragraph 3 (extracted above) was, that the appellant was the lawful ryot of the lands in dispute, and that, the respondents were his tenants. The appellant herein, is not the tenant of Sri Sangameswara Swamyreason of the above legal position declared by this Court, it is not possible to accept, that the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1977, was not binding on the Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu.17. It is also not possible for us to accept, that the claim raised by the appellant was barred by limitation. It was never in dispute between the parties, that the appellant was in possession of the land.Our instant determination on the issue of limitation emerges from the fact, that the appellant had preferred Execution Application No.18/2007 when respondent no.1 allegedly tried to interfere with the possession of the agricultural land in question, on 06.07.2005. There was no justification for determining limitation, with reference to the date when the decree in Original Suit No.32/1974 was passed. The relevant date for determining limitation was 06.07.2005, when the appellants possession was allegedly threatened. Viewed as above, the claim raised by the appellant, was certainly not barred by