http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3429 of 2002

PETITIONER: Boddam Narsimha

RESPONDENT: Hasan Ali Khan (Dead) by L.R. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2007

BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & S. H. Kapadia

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

KAPADIA, J.

       Nawaz Jung Bahadur was a pattedar of the lands  inter alia  in Survey  Nos. 63, 68, 69 and 70 admeasuring 69 acres 10 guntas in village Madhapur  of Serlingampally Mandal,  Ranga Reddy in Andhra Pradesh. On the demise  of Nawaz Jung Bahadur, one of his sons Mohd. Ali Khan filed a suit for  partition of the properties of late Nawaz Jung Bahadur. This was in 1935.  The scheduled property was Item 6 of Schedule B in Suit No. 42/62 filed in  the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the plaint it was stated that Item 6 was in  possession of the tenants. One such tenant, Boddam Bala Mallaiah  (hereinafter referred to as "Bala") was the cultivating tenant in respect of  Survey Nos. 63, 68, 69 and 70 of village Madhapur admeasuring 69 acres 10  guntas as indicated by Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Bala was a lessee  for three years. He was inducted in the aforesaid lands under a kaulanama  dated 1.3.1953. This kaulanama was executed by one Hamid Ali Khan son  of Md. Nawaz Jung. Initially it was for one year. It was renewed each year.  It stated that on expiry of the stipulated period the tenant will have no right  over the land in possession. It further stated that Bala will be sole cultivator  and that without the permission of the landlord, Bala will not include any  other cultivator. Hamid Ali Khan sold his share to Bala on 23.11.1959  through a registered sale deed. The partition suit referred to above filed in  1935 (renumbered in 1962) stood decided on 24.11.1970. This sale deed  dated 23.11.1959 in favour of Bala stood executed after the vendor Hamid  Ali Khan obtained permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad  Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950. The permission was obtained  from Deputy Collector on 13.11.1959. Accordingly, Bala became a pattedar  in place of Hamid Ali Khan in respect of the suit land. In the revenue  records for the year 1972-73, the name of Bala was shown as pattedar. The  alienation in favour of Bala was during the pendency of the suit for partition  of the ancestral properties belonging to Nawaz Jung Bahadur. Bala died in  1975. He was the paternal uncle of the appellant herein.

Pursuant to the preliminary decree, an Advocate Commissioner was  appointed in the final decree proceedings vide I. A. No. 854/84 in suit No.  42/62. On 28.11.1993 the said Commissioner came to the suit site to  measure the lands. At that stage the LRs. of Bala and his 2 brothers   instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein  being suit No. 294/93 which was dismissed on 8.6.1998. The important  point to be noted is that the plaintiffs in the said suit did not allege Bala to be  a protected tenant. Bala had two brothers, namely, Agaiah (father of the  appellant) and Komariah.

       Subsequently, the vendees ( K. Sambasiva Rao and ors.) who claimed  title through the LRs. of Bala and his two bothers instituted another suit for  permanent injunction against the respondents herein. This suit was dismissed  on 8.6.1998.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       The LRs. of Bala and his two brothers filed one more application  before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982  which was dismissed by the Special Court vide Order dated 13.5.1997.

       Having failed in the above proceedings, an application was moved on  16.12.1998 before the Tribunal (R.D.O.), Ranga Reddy Distt. seeking a  declaration of protected tenancy under Section 37-A of the Tenancy Act.  This application was moved by the present appellant. In the said application,  it was alleged for the first time that late Bala was a protected tenant. By the  said application, the appellant also asked for an Ownership Certificate under  Section 38-E of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands  Act, 1950 ("the Act") as amended from time to time. In other words, the  appellant herein invoked the said Act for the first time on 16.12.1998 though  Section 37-A stood incorporated in the tenancy law by way of an  (Amendment) Act, 1955, which came into force on 12.3.1956.

       Bala was the paternal uncle of the appellant herein. He died in 1975.  He, during his lifetime, did not claim to be a protected tenant. In fact, as  stated above, he became a pattedar prior to 1.1.1973. Even his LRs. did not  claim that Bala was a protected tenant in respect of the said land, therefore,  for the first time, the nephew of Bala, the appellant herein, sought a  declaration that Bala was a protected tenant under Section 37-A and  accordingly claimed an Ownership Certificate under Section 38-E of the Act  after a lapse of more than 40 years. No explanation was given in the  application by the appellant for not invoking section 37-A for almost 40  years. The Tenancy Act came into force on 10.6.1950. At this point it may  be stated that the appellant herein is not the L.R. of Bala. The appellant is  the nephew of Bala, however, appellant claims that Bala was cultivating the  above lands with his two brothers, namely, Agaiah (father of the appellant  herein) and Komaraiah.  

       On receipt of the said application dated 16.12.1998, the matter was  referred by the Tribunal to the Mandal Revenue Officer ("M.R.O."), who  reported that there was no protected tenants in respect of the suit lands and  that Bala’s name was never recorded as protected tenant in respect of the  said lands. It was further reported that Bala was the pattedar, that he was  cultivating the lands as pattedar and that he was cultivating as Owner under  the above sale-deed dated 23.11.1959.

       Before the Tribunal, two contentions were advanced, namely, that  Bala was a deemed tenant under section 5 of the Act. It was also contended  that, in any event, Bala was the protected tenant under section 37-A of the  Act and, therefore, he was entitled to Ownership Certificate under section  38-E of the Act. Both these contentions were rejected by the Tribunal vide  order dated 24.8.1999. It was held that section 5 contemplates making of an  application by the landlord upon which the Tehsildar had to decide whether  there is a deemed tenant on the property. The Tribunal held on the facts of  the present case that neither the appellant protested against omission of  Bala’s name from the revenue records as a deemed tenant nor has the  landlord filed an application before the Tehsildar to declare Bala not be a  tenant. No application was ever made to rectify the alleged mistake/  omission. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that section 5 of the Act  has no application. On the second point regarding applicability of section  38-E, the Tribunal held that in 1975 an enquiry was conducted pursuant to  the Notification issued by the Government enforcing the provisions of  section 38-E. In that enquiry, it was found that there were no protected  tenants in Madhapur village. For the aforestated reasons, the Tribunal  dismissed the application made by the appellant.

       Aggrieved by order of the Tribunal dated 24.8.1999, the appellant  herein preferred an appeal under Section 90 of the Act. The appeal was  dismissed by the Joint Collector vide order dated 13.3.2000. Thereupon, a  Civil Revision Petition was filed by the appellant herein under section 91 of  the Act which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

16.4.2001 which is now under challenge before this Court.

       Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the  appellant submitted that a statutory right of protected tenancy is not lost on  account of delay or laches. It was submitted that such a right is not  obliterated for want of application, particularly when the law does not  contemplate any such application by the person claiming to be a protected  tenant and also in the absence of any injury or prejudice to the land holders.  In this connection, it was urged that under section 37-A of the Act, a tenant  in possession on 12.3.1956 becomes a protected tenant; that section 37-A  directs the authorities to record him as a protected tenant and that section   37-A does not prescribe any application to be made and, therefore, in such  circumstances, it cannot be said that a statutory right is lost because the  concerned person did not make any application for recognition of his status  as a protected tenant. In order words, it was urged that if a tenant is in  possession on 12.3.1956, then the statute confers upon him the status of a  protected tenant and such a right continues even if the person entitled thereto  fails to move the authorities for grant of a declaration. In the circumstances,  it is urged that the appellant was entitled to a certificate of ownership under  section 38-E of the Act, which stood introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1973.

       It was next urged that delay or omission, if any, to compile list of  protected tenants under sections 37-A and 38-E of the Act was on account of  the failure on the part of the concerned authorities under the Act for which  the tenant cannot be denied as status of protected tenancy by invoking the  theory of laches and delay. Learned counsel urged that the statutory rights of  the protected tenant conferred under section 37-A upon cultivating tenants in  possession on 12.3.1956 are automatic and not dependant on applications to  be made. He acquires rights of ownership under section 38-E of the Act  automatically. That the respondents were pattedar of lands admeasuring  2000 acres which was more than the ceiling prescribed and, therefore, Bala  had acquired rights of protected tenancy under section 37-A of the Act  because he was the cultivating tenant in possession on 12.3.1956. According  to section 38-E, the ownership of the land stood automatically transferred to  protected tenants if the conditions under section 38(7) stood satisfied.  According to the appellant, under section 38-E, the authorities were duty  bound to prepare a provisional list of protected tenants to whom ownership  stood transferred. A general notice was required to be published. Individual  notices were required to be given to the protected tenants of the land holders.  A public enquiry was required to be made. Only then a final list had to be  published. Learned counsel submitted that no such notice was ever given to  the appellant though the appellant’s family continued to remain in  possession. The appellant have challenged the finding of the Tribunal that  there was an enquiry and a nil provisional list was prepared in 1975 under  section 38-E against which there was no protest from the appellant or from  the LRs. of Bala. As no such notice was ever issued, the application made by  the appellant in 1998 under section 38-E should have been treated as an  objection to the provisional list and, therefore, the Tribunal had wrongly  rejected the appellant’s application for Ownership Certificate. Learned  counsel urged that the name of Bala was recorded in the Khasra Pahani for  the year 1954-55 as a tenant and his name was shown as a pattedar  subsequently and, therefore, it was the statutory duty of the Tribunal to  conduct an enquiry suo moto which they fail to do. It is the case of the  appellant that they are in possession of the lands right throughout and they  moved under the Act only when their possession sought to be disturbed.  Learned counsel submitted that it was the duty of the concerned authorities  to prepare a list of protected tenants. They fail to prepare the list, therefore,  according to the learned counsel, the application of the appellant under  section 38-E ought not to have been rejected on the ground of delay and  laches, particularly when under the Act there is no limitation prescribed. The  appellant had approached the Tribunal when the Advocate Commissioner  appointed by the civil court, in the partition suit filed by the owners  (respondents herein) sought partition of the properties belonging to late  Nawaz Jung Bahadur, tried to dispossess the appellant. Therefore, the  appellant’s right to seek a declaration/ Ownership Certificate arose only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

when the Advocate Commissioner tried to dispossess the appellant. Mere  laches would not disentitle the tenant to the relief sought for by him under  the Act. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Full  Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sada  v. The  Tahsildar, Utnoor reported in AIR 1988 AP 77. It was submitted that the  accrued right in favour of the tenant by operation of law does not get  defeated merely by omission to have their names recorded in the revenue  records. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of this  Court in the case of Bahadur Singh and ors.  v.  Shangara Singh and ors.  reported in (1995) 1 SCC 232. It was next contended that in view of the  Memo dated 11.9.2000 issued by the R.D.O. stating that the particulars of  tenants who  became protected tenants under section 37-A was not available  though the register contains particulars of 36 other villagers. The High Court  should have directed the Tribunal to hold an enquiry and compile a register  on the basis of the village record since no person can be affected on account  of omissions on the part of the Tribunal in complying with the statutory  mandatory provisions of the Act.

       For the following reasons, we do not find any merit in the above  contentions.

       Bala was a koul  who had taken an annual lease from Hamid Ali  Khan. He was a tenant-at-will. This was during the pendency of the partition  suit. He became a pattedar vide conveyance dated 23.11.1959. The kaul  itself indicates, that Bala was to cultivate in his individual capacity; that at  the end of the year, Bala had to return the lands to the owner; that Bala was  not given the right to include any other cultivator. Therefore, there is no  merit in the contention of the appellant that Bala was jointly cultivating the  suit lands with his two brothers Agaiah (father of the appellant) and  Komaraiah. Further, between tenancy and the conveyance, there was a time  gap. Hamid Ali Khan was a pattedar. His rights were purchased by Bala  vide conveyance dated 23.11.1959, therefore, on 1.1.1973, when the  Notification came to be issued, Bala was not the tenant. He was a pattedar.  Moreover, appellant herein is not the L.R. of Bala. Bala was his paternal  uncle. At no point of time, even the LRs. of Bala had claimed that Bala was  a protected tenant. It is evident from section 38-E that the said section has  been enacted for those protected tenants who are declared to be protected  tenants and included in the Register prepared for that purpose. A person  becomes a protected tenant when he is a holder on the dates or for the  periods mentioned in sections 35, 37 and 37-A. Once a person becomes a  protected tenant, he is entitled to an Ownership Certificate under section 38- E. In the case of Sada (supra) the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court held that a person "holds" the land as protected tenant if he is still a  protected tenant on the notified date i.e. 1.1.1973, though out of possession.  As long as his right as protected tenant has not been determined by the date  of Notification in a manner known to the Act, he holds the land as a  protected tenant, whether physically in possession or not. For the vesting of  ownership of land held by a protected tenant under section 38-E, it is not  necessary that the protected tenant should be in physical possession on  1.1.1973. It is sufficient if he continues to hold the status of a protected  tenant on the notified date, even if he is not in physical possession. The Act  does not merely regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant but deals  with the alienation of agricultural land and includes transfer of the land  holders interest to the protected tenants. Therefore, the grant of pattedari  (ownership rights) also finds place in the Act.  

On the facts and circumstances of the present case, Bala had become a  pattedar (owner) under the conveyance dated 23.11.1959. His name was  shown as a pattedar even prior to 1.1.1973. The benefit of section 38-E is  given to persons who hold the lands as protected tenants and who continue  to hold the lands as protected tenants on 1.1.1973. The protected tenancy has  to be enforced on 1.1.1973. Under section 38-E, ownership rights are  conferred only upon persons who continue to be protected tenants as on  1.1.1973. They form a special class. In the present case, as stated above,  Bala became a pattedar in 1959. In the case of Sada (supra) it has been held

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

that protected tenants are covered by Chapter IV of the Act. They fall under  a limited category. They are referred to in sections 34, 37 and 37-A. In the  said judgment, it has been held that section 37-A, introduced by Act No.  3/56 deals with a separate class of persons deemed to be protected tenants.  This class of persons is different from the category of protected tenants who  fall under sections 34 and 37 respectively. Section 37-A refers to persons  who are holders of the land at the commencement of Amending Act of 1955  (12.3.1956). These persons were required to be tenants on 12.3.1956 and  that they should continue to be tenants till 1.1.1973. Only such category of  persons are entitled to Ownership Certificate under section 38-E. In the  present case, even for the sake of argument, if we were to proceed on the  basis that Bala was a protected tenant on 12.3.1956, still Bala became a  pattedar vide conveyance dated 23.11.1959, therefore, in any event, the  assumed protected tenancy did not continue up to 1.1.1973. In our opinion,  therefore, in any view of the matter, the appellant herein was not entitled to  the Ownership Certificate under section 38-E of the Act. Section 38-E has  no application to the facts of the present case.  

We conclude on this point by quoting para 44 of the judgment of  Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sada (supra). "44. In our view, this contention is not correct. If a  protected tenant is already in physical possession on the  date of notification there is no problem at all. If  proceedings under S. 19, 32 or 44 are pending, the date  of vesting gets itself postponed. If the ’protected tenancy’  stood validly terminated by the date of notification under  S. 19, 32 or 44, in that case, no certificate at all can be  issued. But, as long as a person continued to be a  ’protected tenant’ either under S. 34, 37 or 37-A, as per  the Act and has not lost that status, whether he is in  actual possession or not on the date of notification, and is  also to be ’deemed’ to be in possession under the first part  of the Explanation subject to S. 32(7) and the proviso to  S. 38-E(1), the ownership stands transferred straightway  to such protected tenant by the very force of S. 38- E(1).  Further, S. 38-E(2) read with the A. P. (T.A.) Protected  Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973  contemplates a full-fledged inquiry after notice to the  landholders or after hearing objections of any other  interested person (vide Rr. 4, 5). Once a certificate is  issued, the same is, under S.. 38E(2), ’conclusive  evidence’ of the ownership of the protected tenant, and  cannot be defeated by the result of any inquiry under  second part of the Explanation to S. 38- E. Another  reason for this view is that the inquiry under S. 38-E(2)  read with the Rules of 1973 referred to above, is to be  done by the Tribunal (the Revenue Divisional Officer)  and obviously his decision to grant the ownership  certificate will not and cannot be jeopardised by the  result of any inquiry by a subordinate official like the  Tahslidar, who deals with the granting of possession to a  ’protected tenant."                             (emphasis supplied)

       Secondly, as stated above, Bala was a lessee from Hamid Ali Khan.  The kaul itself indicates that Bala was obliged to cultivate the lands in his  individual capacity. However, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that  Bala jointly cultivated the lands with Agaiah (father of the appellant herein),  and Komaraiah. We gave opportunity to the appellant to produce any entry  from the revenue records, village records or mutation entry indicating joint  cultivation of the land by Bala and his two brothers. Appellant had not been  able to show any such entry. This aspect is important since the appellant is  not the L.R. of Bala. At no point of time, Bala or his LRs. or even the  appellant has approached the authorities to record joint cultivation in the  mutation entries.  Under section 48-A of the Act, restrictions are placed on  alienation by a protected tenant. A protected tenant on 1.1.1973 cannot

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

alienate the right of ownership under section 38-E for eight years from the  date of acquisition of such rights. Further, under section 40 of the Act, all  rights of a protected tenant are heritable by his lineal descendants by blood  or adoption. Bala died in 1975. Bala died during the period when there was  restriction on alienation of ownership rights acquired by a protected tenant  under section 38-E. The present appellant has not applied on the demise of  Bala for his name to be brought on record as L.R. of Bala or on the basis of  joint cultivation by his father, Agaiah and other uncle Komaraiah. Further  under section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass  Book Act, 1971, acquisition of rights have got to be intimated. Any person  who acquires any right by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition,  patta or otherwise has to intimate in writing about his acquisition of such  right. There is nothing to show that Bala and his two brothers were jointly  cultivating the lands. In fact, the kaul did not allow Bala to cultivate the land  with any other person without the prior permission of the landlord. In the  circumstances, there is no evidence to show that the land was jointly  cultivated by Bala along with Agaiah and Komaraiah. Therefore, in any  view of the matter, since the present appellant is not the L.R. of Bala, he is  not entitled to an Ownership Certificate or a declaration of protected tenancy  under the Act. In our view, having failed in the civil court and before the  special court under the Land Grabbing Act the present appellant falsely  claimed to be a protected tenant as on 1.1.1973. The entire exercise was an  abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in  dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches.

       For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in the civil appeal and  the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.