Supreme Court Upholds Tenant Rights: Thota Sridhar Reddy vs. Mandala Ramulamma (2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a protected tenant’s ownership rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, can be nullified by a subsequent grant of occupancy rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

CASE TYPE: Land Law, Tenancy Rights

Case Name: Thota Sridhar Reddy & Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: October 1, 2021

Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2021

Citation: [Not Available in the source]

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a protected tenant’s right to ownership be extinguished by a later grant of occupancy rights to another party? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a case involving land rights in Telangana. The core issue revolved around the conflict between the rights of a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act and the rights of a purchaser claiming occupancy under the Inams Act. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has clarified the supremacy of the Tenancy Act in protecting tenant rights.

Case Background

The case involves a land dispute in Jeedimetla village, Hyderabad, concerning land originally held by Mandala Lakshmaiah as a protected tenant. In 1954, the tenant allegedly surrendered his rights orally to Shri Thota Balakrishna Reddy (the purchaser). Subsequently, in 1957, both the original Inamdar and the protected tenant purportedly sold their rights to the purchaser. The purchaser then applied for occupancy rights under the Inams Act, which were granted in 1982. However, the protected tenant was also granted ownership rights in 1975 under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. This created a conflict, with the purchaser claiming occupancy rights and the protected tenant asserting ownership. The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the High Court set aside the occupancy rights granted to the purchaser.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad allowed a revision petition under Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector. The Revenue Divisional Officer had granted occupancy rights to the purchaser in 1982, and the Joint Collector had dismissed the appeal filed by the protected tenant in 2017. The High Court’s decision effectively annulled the occupancy rights granted to the purchaser, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves a complex interplay between two key pieces of legislation: the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Tenancy Act) and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Inams Act).

✓ The Tenancy Act defines a “protected tenant” and outlines their rights, including the right to purchase the land they cultivate. Section 19 of the Tenancy Act specifies the conditions under which a tenancy can be terminated, including a requirement for written surrender by the tenant, admitted before the Tahsildar. Section 34 defines who is deemed to be a protected tenant. Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act allows the government to declare that ownership of lands held by protected tenants shall stand transferred to them. Section 38-E(5) mandates the Collector to hold an enquiry suo motu to ascertain the genuineness of the surrender of right made by the protected tenant. Section 44 of the Tenancy Act places an embargo on the landholder to exercise the right of resumption unless he has sought reservation of land. Section 47 of the Tenancy Act (prior to its omission in 1969) prohibited the transfer of land except to the protected tenant.

✓ The Inams Act deals with the abolition of inams (lands granted by the Nizam or other competent grantors) and the vesting of such lands in the State. Section 3 of the Inams Act states that all inams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State. Section 4 of the Inams Act states that every inamdar shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands. Section 7 of the Inams Act states that every protected tenant shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such inam lands in his possession. Section 33 of the Inams Act states that nothing in the Act shall affect the application of the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

The Supreme Court had to interpret these provisions to determine whether the occupancy rights granted under the Inams Act could override the ownership rights conferred by the Tenancy Act.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Purchasers):

• The protected tenant’s appeal against the grant of occupancy rights was filed beyond the prescribed period and was later withdrawn, indicating acceptance of the purchaser’s rights.
• The purchasers had bought the Inam land, and the rights of the protected tenant under the Tenancy Act are subject to the Inams Act as per Section 33 of the Inams Act.
• The Inams Act recognizes the right of both the Inamdar and the protected tenant to sell their rights in the land.
• The protected tenant had surrendered his tenancy rights orally in 1954 and through a registered document in 1957.
• The occupancy rights certificate was issued in 1982 after due inquiry and after hearing the heirs of the original protected tenant.
• Affidavits were filed by the protected tenant’s family admitting the sale of land to the purchaser in 1957.
• The protected tenant’s application for restoration of possession was not disclosed before the High Court, indicating suppression of facts by the respondents.
• Three generations of the protected tenant participated in transactions granting occupancy rights to the purchaser’s family.
• The protected tenant’s claim of becoming aware of the occupancy rights certificate in 2015 is a false defense.
• The purchaser has been in possession since the date of purchase, thus perfecting their title.
• The certificate under Section 38-E was granted under a misconception due to an uncorrected protected tenancy register.
• The certificate under Section 38-E should be followed by payment of compensation to the land owner, which was not done.
• The predecessor-in-interest of the purchaser was in possession on 01.11.1973, entitling him to occupancy rights under the Inams Act.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (Protected Tenants):

• The Tenancy Act and Inams Act are based on the principle that the tiller of the land should be the owner.
• The provisions of the Tenancy Act are intended to protect tenants from exploitation and restrict relinquishment of their rights.
• The alleged oral surrender of tenancy rights in 1954 and the subsequent sale in 1957 are prohibited by law.
• Surrender of tenancy rights must be in writing, admitted by the tenant before the Tahsildar, and made in good faith.
• The purchasers did not disclose the factum of the appeal being filed before the Joint Collector or the High Court.
• The filing and withdrawal of the appeal are surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
• The order granting occupancy rights was passed after the issuance of the certificate under Section 38-E.
• Once ownership rights were granted under Section 38-E, there was no interest or title in the disputed land that could be claimed by the purchasers.
• Section 33 of the Inams Act specifically states that the Inams Act will not affect the Tenancy Act.
• Section 38-E (1) of the Tenancy Act, substituted in 1971, has an overriding effect over any other law, including the Inams Act.
• The failure to deposit the sale consideration is inconsequential as it was the land owner’s responsibility to apply for compensation.
• The land owner could not sell his interest without giving the protected tenant an opportunity to purchase the land.
• The Ownership Certificate issued under Section 38-E has not been challenged by any person before any authority.
• The Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued without any notice to the protected tenant.
• The affidavits of Mandala Yettaiah and Govaramma are undated, unsigned and ineffective.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the stand of the purchaser that the protected tenant had surrendered the tenancy rights orally, and which was later 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.
2. 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.
3. Whether there was any transferable interest in the property which could be granted to the purchaser in 1982.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

Legal Provisions

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the principles established in Sada v. The Tahsildar [CITATION: (1987) 2 APLJ 397]*, Kotaiah & Anr. v. Property Association of the Baptist Churches(P) Ltd. [CITATION: (1989) 3 SCC 424]*, Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs & Ors. [CITATION: (2010) 1 SCC 756]*, Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan & Ors. [CITATION: (2007) 11 SCC 410]* and B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala Narayana Reddy [CITATION: (2016) 15 SCC 102]* to uphold the rights of the protected tenant. These cases established the principle that a protected tenant’s right to ownership cannot be easily extinguished and that any surrender of tenancy rights must be strictly in accordance with the law. The court distinguished the other cases that were cited by the appellants.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the following factors:

• The overriding effect of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, which grants ownership rights to protected tenants.
• The mandatory procedure for surrender of tenancy rights under Section 38-E(5) read with Section 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, which requires written surrender admitted before the Tahsildar.
• The principle that a protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally and that their rights must be protected.
• The fact that the ownership rights were conferred on the protected tenant before the occupancy rights were granted to the purchaser.
• The need to interpret beneficial legislation in favor of the beneficiaries.

The court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of protected tenants, who are often vulnerable and dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. The court also noted that 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. 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.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning