# THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS v. MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-10-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/thota-sridhar-reddy-ors-v-mandala-ramulamma-ors-35361
- **Pages:** 44

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 - ss.19, 38-E - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Protected tenant - Oral surrender
of the tenancy rights, if permissible - High Court set aside the order
dtd.19.2.82 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer granting
occupancy rights to predecessor-in-interest of the appellantspurchaser as well as the order passed by Joint Collector dismissing
the appeal filed by the protected tenant - Occupancy rights granted
to the purchaser stood annulled - On appeal, held: Surrender of
oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the
Tenancy Act except in the manner prescribed u/s.38-E (5) r/w s.19,
Tenancy Act - In the present case, the oral surrender by the protected
tenant is set up in the year 1954 followed by sale of tenancy rights
in 1957 - Thereafter, the petition u/s.19, Tenancy Act was filed to
seek approval of the Tenancy rights, but was withdrawn on the
basis of an order withdrawing the appeal against the grant of
occupancy rights - Thus, the purchasers took steps to procure
surrender of tenancy rights, realizing that such surrender cannot
be oral or by executing a sale deed - It was a cover up operation
initiated by the purchaser - Since, neither the oral surrender nor
surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the
subsequent surrender approved by Mandal Revenue Officer is a
nullity as such surrender is in contravention of the statutory
provisions - Protected tenant was conferred ownership rights
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act on 23.3.75 whereas the conferment of
occupancy rights were granted in the year 1982 under the Inams
Act - On grant of certificate of ownership u/s.38-E, the protected
tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land - Once
the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be
any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of
1161
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act - Appeals allegedly filed by the protected
tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and
subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential - Title of
the protected tenants is complete and the ownership vests with them
- Entitled to restoration of possession.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 - ss.19, 32, 38-E - Held: Neither s.19 nor s.32
forming part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in
respect of protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of s.19 on the basis of s.38-E(5) which starts with a non
obstante clause giving overriding effect to anything contained in
s.38-E.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 - Operation of the Acts - Held: Both the Inams Act
and the Tenancy Act are enacted by the same Legislature - The
Inams Act is a later Act enacted in 1955 but s.38-E (1) was
substituted in 1971 which starts with a non- obstante clauseTherefore, ownership certificate granted under the Tenancy Act
would prevail over the grant of occupancy rights certificate under
the Inams Act - Both the Acts operate in different spheres.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV
of the Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materially
different from that of tenants governed by Chapter III of the
Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at much higher
pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of the
land, right has been given to him to seek possession later.
Therefore, neither Section 19 nor Section 32 forming part of
Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of
protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5) which
st

## Text

_Characters 0–39,660 of 97,667. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39660 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS.
v.
MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2021)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 - ss.19, 38-E - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Protected tenant - Oral surrender
of the tenancy rights, if permissible - High Court set aside the order
dtd.19.2.82 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer granting
occupancy rights to predecessor-in-interest of the appellantspurchaser as well as the order passed by Joint Collector dismissing
the appeal filed by the protected tenant - Occupancy rights granted
to the purchaser stood annulled - On appeal, held: Surrender of
oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the
Tenancy Act except in the manner prescribed u/s.38-E (5) r/w s.19,
Tenancy Act - In the present case, the oral surrender by the protected
tenant is set up in the year 1954 followed by sale of tenancy rights
in 1957 - Thereafter, the petition u/s.19, Tenancy Act was filed to
seek approval of the Tenancy rights, but was withdrawn on the
basis of an order withdrawing the appeal against the grant of
occupancy rights - Thus, the purchasers took steps to procure
surrender of tenancy rights, realizing that such surrender cannot
be oral or by executing a sale deed - It was a cover up operation
initiated by the purchaser - Since, neither the oral surrender nor
surrender in writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the
subsequent surrender approved by Mandal Revenue Officer is a
nullity as such surrender is in contravention of the statutory
provisions - Protected tenant was conferred ownership rights
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act on 23.3.75 whereas the conferment of
occupancy rights were granted in the year 1982 under the Inams
Act - On grant of certificate of ownership u/s.38-E, the protected
tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land - Once
the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be
any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of
1161
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate
u/s.38-E, Tenancy Act - Appeals allegedly filed by the protected
tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and
subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential - Title of
the protected tenants is complete and the ownership vests with them
- Entitled to restoration of possession.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 - ss.19, 32, 38-E - Held: Neither s.19 nor s.32
forming part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in
respect of protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of s.19 on the basis of s.38-E(5) which starts with a non
obstante clause giving overriding effect to anything contained in
s.38-E.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 - Operation of the Acts - Held: Both the Inams Act
and the Tenancy Act are enacted by the same Legislature - The
Inams Act is a later Act enacted in 1955 but s.38-E (1) was
substituted in 1971 which starts with a non- obstante clauseTherefore, ownership certificate granted under the Tenancy Act
would prevail over the grant of occupancy rights certificate under
the Inams Act - Both the Acts operate in different spheres.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Act contained in Chapter IV
of the Tenancy Act in respect of protected tenant is materially
different from that of tenants governed by Chapter III of the
Tenancy Act. The protected tenants are placed at much higher
pedestal as even if a protected tenant is not in possession of the
land, right has been given to him to seek possession later.
Therefore, neither Section 19 nor Section 32 forming part of
Chapter III of the Tenancy Act are applicable in respect of
protected tenant except when the reference is made to the
provisions of Section 19 on the basis of Section 38-E(5) which
starts with a non obstante clause giving overriding effect to
anything contained in Section 38-E. Such clause mandates the
Collector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the
genuineness of the surrender of right made by the protected
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
tenant. This exercise had to be done before the surrender of
tenancy rights and not subsequently after many years of alleged
surrender on the strength of unequal bargaining power with the
tenant who survives on the basis of agriculture activities. The
purchasers relied upon an oral surrender of tenancy rights in
the year 1954 and later by a written document of 5.2.1957. The
execution of the document in the year 1957 unequivocally proves
the factum of protected tenancy of the respondents herein. Such
surrender is contrary to Section 47 of the Tenancy Act prior to
its omission by AP Act No. 12 of 1969 and in contravention of
Section 38-E(5) read with Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.
[Paras 31, 32][1196-E-H; 1197-A]
1.2 A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession in
terms of Section 36 as well as Section 44 of the Tenancy Act
which prohibits the termination of protected tenancy. The proviso
to sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Tenancy Act puts complete
embargo on a land holder to exercise the right of resumption
unless he has within a period of eighteen months from the
commencement of the said Act sought reservation of land to
exercise his right or resumption in terms of the commencement
of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,
1955. The Deputy Collector in terms of the said provision had to
make a necessary enquiry and issue a certificate that the land
has been so reserved. Thus, the land holder had no right to
terminate the tenancy after the commencement of Amending Act,
1955 except after an enquiry which was to be conducted by the
Deputy Collector. No such reservation had been made nor any
enquiry was conducted, therefore, the rights of protected tenant
cannot be defeated. The purchasers have relied upon the oral
surrender of protected tenancy in the year 1954. Such surrender
of oral tenancy of a protected tenant is not permissible under the
Tenancy Act except in the manner which is prescribed under
Section 38-E (5) read with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Still
further, the protected tenant has a right to seek possession in
terms of Section 36 of the Tenancy Act. Even in terms of Section
38-D, if the land holder intends to sell the land which is in
possession of a protected tenant, he has to give a notice in writing
of his intention to such protected tenant. [Paras 33, 34][1197-BF]
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
1.3 Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificate
of ownership under Section 38-E, the protected tenants shall be
deemed to be the full owners of such land. Further, explanation
provided under Section 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenant
has been dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by the
order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, then
notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, or
the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal shall be deemed
to be holding the land on the date of notification. The Tahsildar is
under an obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of an
application by the protected tenant, to hold a summary enquiry
and direct taking of land in possession of the land holder or any
other person claiming through or under him. The possession
from a protected tenant can be taken only if the surrender of
tenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The land
owner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 of
the Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within one
year. Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancy
rights by protected tenant and even if the tenancy is terminated,
the land holder is personally liable to restore possession to the
tenant, if he fails to cultivate the land within one year of
termination of tenancy. Once a certificate of ownership is granted
which is required to be published in the Government Gazette,
the land stands transferred and vested in the protected tenant as
a full owner of such land. Such certificate is final subject to the
rights of the landowner under the Tenancy Act which is only to
seek compensation. [Paras 35, 36][1197-F-H; 1198-A-C]
1.4 In the present case, the entire argument is based upon
the fact of oral surrender and subsequent filing and withdrawal of
appeal in the year 1989 and of filing a belated appeal against the
ownership certificate in the year 2015. The fact of filing of an
appeal and its withdrawal was not raised in the first instance by
the purchasers in proceedings before the Joint Collector or before
the High Court. Since such documents were not produced at the
earliest opportunity, and the veracity of such documents is not
beyond doubt, there cannot be any attribution of knowledge of
the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the purchasers. It
is strange that the appeal was withdrawn on 14.2.1989 but Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
19 petition was dismissed on the basis of alleged withdrawal of
appeal on 31.1.1989. The High Court has held that the interest
of the protected tenant cannot be validly conveyed in law in view
of Section 30 of the Tenancy Act. In the present case, the surrender
of tenancy rights is before the Mandal Revenue Officer on
31.1.1989, whereas as per the proviso to Section 19(1)(a) of the
Tenancy Act, a tenant can surrender his rights at least a month
before the commencement of the year and that surrender is to
be made by the tenant in writing. Such surrender is to be admitted
by him before the Tehsildar and the authority is to satisfy itself
that surrender is made in good faith. In the present case, the oral
surrender by the protected tenant is set up in the year 1954.
Such surrender is followed by sale of tenancy rights in the year
1957. Thereafter, the petition under Section 19 of the Tenancy
Act was filed to seek approval of the Tenancy rights, such
application was withdrawn on the basis of an order withdrawing
the appeal against the grant of occupancy rights. This shows that
the purchasers have taken steps to procure surrender of tenancy
rights, realizing that such surrender cannot be orally or by
executing a sale deed. It was a cover up operation initiated by
the purchaser but the same was still against the mandate of the
statute as the finding of the surrender has to be recorded by the
Tehsildar. Since, neither the oral surrender nor surrender in
writing was recorded as bonafide by the Tehsildar, the subsequent
surrender approved by the Mandal Revenue Officer is a nullity
and bears no legal effect as such surrender is in contravention of
the statutory provisions. The protected tenant was conferred
ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act on
23.3.1975 whereas the conferment of occupancy rights were
granted in the year 1982 under the Inams Act. [Paras 37,
38][1198-E-H; 1199-A-E]
1.5 Sub-section (5) of Section 38-E provides for an enquiry
to ascertain the genuineness of surrender of the right by the
protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
19. There is no provision in Chapter IV of the Tenancy Act to
surrender protected tenancy rights. However, if an application is
made under Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act, the genuineness
of such surrender is required to be ascertained by the Collector.
The High Court has failed to notice that the explanation in subTHOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
section (1) of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act specifically
provides that if a protected tenant, on account of his being
dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the
Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the
land on the date of the notification issued under sub-section (1),
then, the Tahsildar 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 land holder or any person claiming
through or under him in that area, shall be taken from such
possession thereof and shall be restored to the protected tenant.
[Paras 42, 44][1200-D-E, G-H; 1201-A]
Ponnala Narasing Rao v. Nallolla Pantaiah (1998) 9
SCC 183 : 1998 ( 7 ) JT 600; Vorla Ramachandra
Reddy & Anr. v. Joint Collector I & Ors. (2021) SCC
OnLine TS 703; Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan
& Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 410 : [2007] 1 SCR 1223 -
distinguished.
1.6 The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant
against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently
being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant of
ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy
Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners. Once the
protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be
any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested
of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate
under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also
not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of the protected
tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with
them. There was no right with the purchaser to claim occupancy
rights on the basis of possession since 1.11.1973 upon surrender
of protected tenancy rights. If the surrender of protected tenancy
rights is not in accordance with the mandate of the statute, the
possession from 1.11.1973 would be inconsequential as such
possession would not affect the rights of the protected tenant
who is entitled to statutory protection. In fact, the grant of
Certificate unequivocally transfers ownership rights to the
protected tenant.[Paras 47, 48][1202-D-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1167
1.7 The Inams Act is a subsequent statute than the Tenancy
Act Section 33 of the Inams Act is to the effect that nothing in
the Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of the
provisions of the Tenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights and
obligations of Inamdar and his tenants, save insofar as the said
provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions
of this Act. Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act, as substituted in
the year 1971, starts with a non-obstante clause giving overriding
effect to any other law for the time being in force. Such sub-clause
will include the Inams Act and that Inams Act will not be operative
in the case of Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act. This notification
was issued on 1.1.1973 to cover the entire Telangana Area of the
State. Both the Inams Act and the Tenancy Act are enacted by
the same Legislature. The Inams Act is a later Act enacted in the
year 1955 but Section 38-E (1) was substituted in the year 1971
which starts with a non- obstante clause. Therefore, ownership
certificate granted under the Tenancy Act would prevail over the
grant of occupancy rights certificate under the Inams Act. Both
the Acts operate in different spheres. Inams Act deals with the
land owner, whereas the Tenancy Act protects the rights of the
tiller i.e., tenant including a protected tenant. Section 38-E of the
Tenancy Act was inserted initially in the year 1954 and
subsequently substituted in 1971 giving overriding effect to such
provision. Therefore, an Inamdar under the Inams Act would not
have any right of allotment of occupancy rights in view of
overriding effect given to Section 38-E. [Para 49][1202-G-H;
1203-A-E]
1.8 However, ownership rights were granted to the
protected tenant in respect of land measuring 19 acres and 16
guntas whereas occupancy rights have been granted in respect
of the land measuring 31.05 guntas including of land falling in
Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla on 19.2.1982.
Therefore, the said occupancy rights certificate in favor of the
purchaser shall be valid in respect of the land falling under Survey
Nos. 61 and 62, which is not the land claimed by the protected
tenant as part of their tenancy. The Occupancy Rights Certificate
in respect of land falling in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 is null
and void and inoperative. The protected tenant shall be entitled
to restoration of possession in terms of explanation to Section
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
38-E (1) read with Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar
to ensure that the possession is delivered to the protected tenant
within 3 months. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed except
to the extent of land falling in Survey Nos. 61 and 62 in respect of
which the occupancy certificate granted to the purchasers on
19.2.1982 would be valid. [Paras 50-52][1203-F-H; 1204-A-B]
S. Rangaiah and Ors. v. Collector Medak & Ors. (1996)
SCC Online AP 275; S. Veera Reddy v. Chetlapalli
Chandaiaha (1994) SCC Online AP 510; Bhimavarapu
Venkaiah & Anr. v. RDO (1999) SCC Online AP 896;
S. Narsasimha and Ors. v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga
Reddy District (2006) SCC Online AP 57 -
distinguished.
Kotaiah & Anr. v. Property Association of the Baptist
Churches(P) Ltd. (1989) 3 SCC 424 : [1989] 3 SCR
472; Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v.
S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs & Ors. (2010) 1
SCC 756 : [2009] 16 SCR 47; B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala
Narayana Reddy (2016) 15 SCC 102 : [2016] 4 SCR
62 - relied on.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.
(2019) SCC Online SC 975; Jai Narain Parasrampuria
v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC 756 : [2006] 5
Suppl. SCR 325; Jupudi Bhushanam v. Joint Collector,
Khammam and Ors. (1996) SCC OnLine AP 941; Kasa
Muthanna and Another v. Sunke Rajanna and 11 Ors.
(2015) SCC OnLine Hyd 592; Sada v. The Tahsildar
(1987) 2 APLJ 397; J. Narayana & Ors. v. Jainapally
Pedda Kistaiah and Ors. (2013) SCC OnLine AP 289
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 1 SCR 1223
distinguished
Para 10
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 325
referred to
Para 14
[2016] 4 SCR 62
relied on
Para 17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1169
[1989] 3 SCR 472
relied on
Para 20
[2009] 16 SCR 47
relied on
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2506
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2019 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No.3848 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2507 of 2021.
Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., D. Ramakrishna Reddy,
V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms. D. Tejaswi Reddy,
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, R. V. Yogesh, Nishesh Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellants.
B. Adi Narayan Rao, Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advs., Balram
Goud, Abid Ali Beeran, Mithun Shashank, Sarath S. Janardanan,
Ms. Filza Moonis, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy,
M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh whereby revision under Section 28 of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 19551 was allowed
on 3.6.2019 while setting aside the order dated 19.2.1982 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy rights to Shri Thota
Balakrishna Reddy, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants2 in
respect of the land measuring 31.05 guntas falling in survey Nos. 53, 54,
55, 56, 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla as well as the order dated 4.12.2017
passed by the Joint Collector whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the
protected tenant, represented by Mandala Ramulamma, wife of Mandala
Yettaiah3 was dismissed. The resultant effect of such order of the High
Court was that the occupancy rights granted to the purchaser stood
annulled.
1 For short, the 'Inams Act'
2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'purchaser'
3 For short, the 'protected tenant'
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
2. Now, the purchaser seeks restoration of the occupancy rights
granted in their favor on 19.2.1982 in the present appeals. On the other
hand, the protected tenant claims such rights on the strength of certificate
granted to Mandala Yettaiah on 20.3.1975 under Section 38-E of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
19504.
3. It is not in dispute that one Mandala Lakshmaiah was the
protected tenant over the land measuring 19 acres and 16 guntas bearing
Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56 in Village Jeedimetla, District Hyderabad.
The tenancy rights were said to be surrendered orally in favor of Shri
Thota Balakrishna Reddy in the year 1954. The original Inamdar Jayaram
Rao and Venkateshwar Rao executed sale deed of the land measuring
19 acres and 16 guntas on 5.7.1957 in favor of the purchaser- Shri Thota
Balakrishna Reddy. On the same day, the protected tenant has also
purportedly sold the tenancy rights in favor of the purchaser.
4. The purchaser applied for occupancy rights certificate under
the Inams Act in the year 1975. Such certificate was granted to him on
19.2.1982 in view of the occupation and possession of the land by the
purchaser. On the other hand, the protected tenant was conferred
ownership rights when the certificate of ownership under Section 38-E
of the Tenancy Act was issued on 20.3.1975. The certificate of ownership
granted to protected tenant reads thus:
"CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP UNDER SECTION 38-E
OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA)
TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT 1950
Whereas Sri Yettaiah is the protected tenant of the land
specified below belonging to the land holder Sri M. Venkateswar
Rao, S/o Nanatha Rao.
And whereas by virtue of Govt. Notification No. G.O.
Ms. No.3, Revenue (G) dated 1st January, 1973 issued under
Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the ownership of the said land
stands transferred to the said Sri Yettaiah.
It is hereby declared that the said tenancy Sri Yettaiah shall
be deemed to be owner of the said land with effect from 1st January,
4 For short, the 'Tenancy Act'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1171
1973 as against the land holder and all other persons having any
interest therein.
DESCRIPTION OF LAND
''
5. The purchaser had the protected tenancy rights firstly by the
alleged oral surrender in the year 1954 and secondly, by transfer of
tenancy rights vide a registered document on 5.7.1957 and later the
factum of withdrawing of an appeal by the protected tenant on 14.2.1989
against the grant of occupancy rights certificate to the purchaser. The
purchaser also relies upon an order passed by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Gutubullapur Mandal on 31.1.1989 in a petition under Section
19 of the Tenancy Act recognizing the surrender of protected tenancy
rights by the protected tenant on the basis of an affidavit allegedly filed
by him on 24.1.1989 to withdraw the appeal against the grant of
occupancy rights to the purchaser. Though the order of withdrawal of
appeal was passed on 14.2.1989, but Section 19 petition was dismissed
on 31.1.1989.
6. Civil Appeal Nos. 2508-2509 of 2021 by way of Special Leave
Petitions were filed by the persons who have purchased plots, amongst
other persons, in the colony known as Meenakshi Estates, developed on
the land admeasuring 9 acres 16 guntas. In the said appeals, the legal
heirs of successors-in-interest of the protected tenant gave up their claim
over the land in question and confined their claim to the remaining land
excluding the land measuring 9 acres 16 guntas. Thus, the issue in the
present appeals is in respect of the residual 10 acres of land.
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
7. In view of this factual background, the question required to be
examined herein is as to whether the stand of the purchaser that the
protected tenant had surrendered the tenancy rights orally and which
was later on accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.1.1989 is
legal and valid and not in contravention of the provisions of the Tenancy
Act. The ancillary question would be whether the purchaser could claim
occupancy rights on 19.2.1982 when the ownership rights were
transferred in favor of the protected tenant on 20.3.1975. It is also to be
ascertained whether there was any transferrable interest in the property
which could be granted to the purchaser in 1982. Such contentions are
required to be assessed in the light of the statutory provisions of the
Tenancy Act and Inams Act which read as thus:
"TENANCY ACT
2(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject
or context:-
xxx
xxx
xxx
(r) "Protected tenant" means a person who is deemed to be a
protected tenant under the provisions of this Act;
(Substituted by AP Act No. 15 of 1971 for "Protected" means a
person who is deemed to be protected tenant under the provisions
of this Act)
xxx
xxx
xxx
(v) "Tenant" means an asami shikmi who holds land on lease and
includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the
provisions of this Act;
xxx
xxx
xxx
CHAPTER III
Tenant
19. (1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or
order of a Court of law, but subject to the provisions of sub-section
(3), no tenancy of land shall be terminated before the expiration
of the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leased
otherwise than,-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
(a) by the tenant by surrender of his rights to the landholder at
least a month before the commencement of the year.
Provided that such surrender is made by the tenant in writing
and is admitted by him before and is made in good faith to the
satisfaction of the Tahsildar; or
Provided further that where the land is cultivated jointly by
joint tenants or members of an undivided Hindu Family, unless the
surrender is made by all of them, it shall be ineffective in respect
of such joint tenants as have not joined in the application for
surrender, irrespective of the fact that the names of all the joint
tenants are not mentioned in the certificate;
(b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section (2).
xxx
xxx
xxx
CHAPTER IV
Protected Tenant
34. (1) A person shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2)
and (3), be deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of land if
he-
(a) has held such land as a tenant continuously, -
(i) for a period of not less than six years, being a period wholly
included in the Fasil years 1342 and 1352 (both years inclusive),
or
(ii) for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding
the 1st day of January, 1948, or
(iii) for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlier
than the 1st day of the Fasil year 1353 (6th October, 1943), and
completed before the commencement of this Act, and
xxx
xxx
xxx
(3) A person who at the commencement of this Act is no longer in
possession of land in respect of which he is deemed under subsection (1) to be a protected tenant shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in that sub-section, not be deemed to be a protected
tenant in respect of such land ifTHOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
(a) he was evicted from such land in pursuance of a decree or
order of a competent Court, or
(b) such land is being cultivated personally by the land-holder, or
(c) a permanent structure has been built by the land-holder on
such land, or
(d) such land has been permanently diverted by the land-holder
to non-agricultural uses.
Explanation.- In sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section and in
sections 35, 36 and 37 references to a person include references
to such two or more persons as are referred to in Explanation III
to sub-section (1)."
*38-E. (1) Notwithstanding anything is 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 Telangana 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 land-holders in such area under any provision
of this Chapter shall, subject to the condition laid down in subsection (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 lands:
Provided 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
Tahsildar as provided in section 32, is not in possession of the land
on the date of the notification issued hereunder, then for the
purposes of this 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of the
notification; and accordingly, the Tahsildar 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 had held the land on the date of such
notification.
(2) A certificate in the prescribed form declaring him to be owner
shall be issued by the Tribunal after holding such enquiry as may
be prescribed, to every such protected tenant and notice of such
issue shall simultaneously be issued to the landholder. Such
certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant
having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of
the certificate as against the landholder and all other persons having
any interest therein:
Provided that where the land, the ownership of which has
been transferred to the protected tenant under sub-section (1), is
in the occupation of a person other than the protected tenant or
holder of the certificate issued under this sub-section, it shall be
lawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said land
to the protected tenant or holder of the certificate, after giving
notice of eviction to the occupant thereof, in the prescribed manner.
(3) Within ninety days from the date of notice of issue of the
certificate under sub-section (2), every land-holder of lands
situated in the area specified in the notification under sub-section
(1), shall file an application before the Tribunal for the determination
of the reasonable price of his interest in the land which has been
transferred to the ownership of a protected tenant under subsection (1), and if an application is not so filed within such period
by the landholder, the Tribunal may suo-motu proceed to determine
such price and thereupon all the provisions of sub-section (4) to
(8) of section 38 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such application:
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
Provided that if the protected tenant commits default in
respect of any instalment, it shall be recovered by the Government
as arrears of land revenue and paid to the landholder:
Provided further that if the whole or any part of the price
due to the landholder cannot be recovered as arrears of land
revenue the transfer shall not be effective and the amount, if any,
already paid by the protected tenant towards the price shall be
refunded to him together with interest at three percent per annum
and the land revenue paid by him, if any, after deducting therefrom
the rent for the period.
(4) The Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the
provisions of this section, by rules, make such supplemental,
incidental and consequential provisions as they may deem
necessary, such as the procedure for making inquiry to ascertain
the extent of the holding of the tenant as on the notified date and
the extent of the land which is to be deemed to have been
transferred to and vested in the protected tenants.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or section
19, the Collector may, suo-motu at any time, hold an enquiry with
a view to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of the right
made by the protected tenant under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of section 19, for the purpose of effecting the transfer of ownership
under this section, and pass such order in relation thereto as he
may think fit.
Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall
be passed under this sub-section unless such person has had an
opportunity of making his representation thereto.
•
Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954. Inserted clause
reads as under:-
"38-E (1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter or any law
for the time being in force or any custom, usage, decree,
contract or grant to the contrary the Government may, by
notification in the Jarida, 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 land-holders in such area under any
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1177
provision of this chapter shall subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of section 38 of the Act stand transferred to and
vest in the protected tenants holding them and from such date
the protected tenant shall be deemed to be the full owner of
such lands."
The said provision was Substituted by AP Act No. 15 of
1971, as extracted above.
xxx
xxx
xxx
44. **[(1)Subject the provisions of sub-section (8) a landholder
who, on the date on which the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1954 comes into force, is
not already cultivating personally an area to three times the family
holding for the local area concerned and who in good faith requires
land leased out to a protected tenant for cultivating personally
may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19 of the Act,
terminate the tenancy and resume such land or portion of such
land that would, together with the land which he is already
cultivating personally, either as owner or protected tenant, be equal
to three times the family holding, by making an application in the
manner prescribed to the Collector or any other officer whom the
Government may from time to time authorise in this behalf.
***[Provided that after the commencement of the
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,
1955, no such landholder shall be entitled to exercise the right of
resumption under this sub-section unless he has within a period of
eighteen months from the commencement of the said Act filed
with the Deputy Collector, in the prescribed manner, a statement
of reservation demarcating the lands which he reserves for the
exercise of the rights or resumption under this section. On such
statement being filed, the Deputy Collector shall, as soon as may
be, after making necessary enquiry, issue a certificate to the
landholder in the prescribed manner to the effect that the lands
have been so reserved. The right to terminate tenancy shall be
exercisable only in respect of the lands specified in the certificate
as so reserved and shall not extend to any other land.]
** Substituted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954.
THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. MANDALA
RAMULAMMA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
*** Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1956
(2) The landholder's right to terminate tenancy of any protected
tenant under sub-section (1) shall be limited to an area which
shall after such termination, leave with the protected tenant an
area, which together with the land owned by him or cultivated by
him as a protected tenant, is equal to a basic holding for the local
area concerned:
Provided that, where by such resumption the land that will
be left with protected tenant together with other land owned or
cultivated by him will be less than a basic holding, the landholder's
right of terminating the tenancy, shall be limited to half the area of
land leased out by him to the said protected tenant:
Provided further, that where the land owned by a landholder
does not exceed a basic holding he will be entitled to resume the
entire land leased by him.]
46. If at any time the tenant makes an application to the Tahsildar
and satisfies him that the landholder has failed to comply within a
reasonable time with the provisions of Section 45, the protected
tenant shall be entitled on a direction by the Tahsildar to obtain
immediate possession of the land to such compensation as may
be awarded by the Tahsildar for any loss caused to the tenant by
his eviction and by the failure of the landholder to restore or give
possession of the land to him as required by the said section.
47. (Omitted by AP Act No.12 of 1969)
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force or in any decree or order of a Court, no
permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land
shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction
of, #[or in the case of a disposition by will] has been confirmed
by, the Taluqdar.
##[Provided that the Collector may declare a permanent
alienation or any other transfer of agricultural land to be valid if
the permanent alienation or transfer took place before the
commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1954 and possession of the land transferred
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
was given to the vendee before such commencement if application
for sanction is made within one year after such commencement].
## Inserted by Hyderabad Act No. III of 1954
(2) Applications for such previous sanction #[or confirmation] shall
be made and disposed of in accordance with such procedure as
may be prescribed.
 # Deleted by Hyderabad Act No. XXIII of 1951
INAMS ACT
1. (1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
(2) It extends to the whole of the Telangana area of the State of
Andhra Pradesh and shall apply to all inams as defined in clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2.
(3)(a) This section, Section 2, Section 3 except clauses (d), (g),
(h) and (i) of sub-section (2), sections 30 to 34 (both inclusive),
Section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made for
the purposes of the aforesaid sections, Section 36 and Section 37,
shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in the
Official Gazette;
(b) the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as the
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint
in this behalf.
2.