Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 1050 - SUPREME COURTClaim for Restoration of possession - issuance of certificate - predecessor-in-interest of the appellants claimed to be protected tenants and sought ownership certificates to become full owners of the suit land - Orders passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ("The Act 1950") - Validity of the tenancy certificate u/s 38-E (2) - HELD THAT:- This judgment and order of the High Court also attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondents any further. in our view, the question of reconsideration of the validity of the tenancy certificate u/s 38-E (2) so far as the appellant nos. 1& 3 are concerned, could not arise in any subsequent proceedings whatsoever. More so, the entitlement of the said appellant nos. 1&3 to claim restoration of possession also cannot be reopened/questioned, as their entitlement to that effect had attained finality as the judgment and order of the High Court, wherein, their right to claim restoration of possession had been upheld, was not challenged by the respondents any further. Thus, it was not permissible for the High Court to re-open the issue in respect of all the appellants as to whether they were entitled for making the applications for restoration of possession. There can be no doubt that once a protected tenant gets a certificate of ownership u/s 38-E(2) of the Act 1950, he has a right to apply for restoration of possession to him if he has been dispossessed. The protected tenant has a right to ask for summary eviction of trespasser. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration as under what circumstances the respondents had been claiming their right to object to the grant of certificates to the appellants and, as to whether the alleged sale deed which had never been produced in any Court, and which was admittedly in contravention of Section 47 of the Act, could give any cause of action to the respondents as, the transaction itself remains inconsequential and ineffective rather, void ab initio. The respondents also could not explain as since what date or year they had been in possession of the land in dispute. Before the RDO, the case of the respondents was that they had been in possession of suit land in pursuance of decree of Civil Court passed in OS No.5/1963. The Order of the RDO reveals that the respondents had claimed before him that they were in possession of the suit land since Ist June, 1950. The High Court in its judgment has taken note of the pleadings taken by the respondents that they had purchased the suit land from original pattedar Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1954. However, it is not stated therein, that they had been put in possession of said land. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has further taken note of the pleadings taken by respondents that Smt. Ayesha Begum, the original land holder offered to sell the entire land to the father of the respondents in the year 1962 and it was so purchased by him for valuable consideration. From the order of Appellate Authority, it is evident that the pleadings before Appellate Authority had been that the respondents were in continuous possession of suit land measuring 17 acres and 20 guntas since last 50 years. The pleadings taken by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in earlier writ petition decided, that they purchased the said land in the year 1955, for valuable consideration. While deciding the case after remand, the RDO in its judgment and order has taken note of the pleadings taken by respondents that the father of the respondents purchased the said land from Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1965. Thus, it is evident that respondents even today are not aware as to what is their case exactly and on what basis they claim the relief. The copy of alleged sale deed or agreement to sell has never been produced before any Court or Authority. It becomes well nigh, impossible to determine as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents ever purchased the suit property and even if it was so, admittedly, the transaction was void being in contravention of Section 47 of the Act 1950. More so, at the time of argument it was pointed out that respondents have entered into compromise with appellant no.3 in the year 2003 and a rectification deed had been prepared. This is an indication that no valid title had ever passed in favour of respondents, otherwise there was no occasion for them to enter into a compromise with appellant no.3. In such a fact-situation the court is under an obligation to do substantial justice even if there are some technical points involved in the case. The Act 1950, being beneficial legislation is to be construed liberally and rights of the tenants are required to be protected. Hence, the appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. Both the applications for substitution of legal representatives/lateral descendants of deceased appellant No.1- Edukanti Kistamma; and deceased Lr.No. iv of deceased appellant no.2 are allowed.
|