Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  11306     2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.14895 of 2010)

Dokiseela Ramulu                                   .......Appellant versus

Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu and others                   .......Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. Leave granted.

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 the appellant’s case, 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

1

Page 2

declared as an ‘Inam Estate’, within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the

Madras Estates Land Act.  Eventually the same, was abolished through

the  Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra  Area)  Estates  (Abolition  and  Conversion

into Ryotwari), Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1948 Act’).   

4. The 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 landlord's 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 “ryotwari patta”. A cultivating tenant was entitled to “ryotwari patta”,

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

extracted hereunder:

“3. Consequences of Notification of estate:-- With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act-

2

Page 3

(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

3

Page 4

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 xxx 11. 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 this section.”  

(emphasis supplied)

6. The appellant having felt threatened of being dispossessed from the

above agricultural land, over which he was a “ryotwari pattadar”, 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 ‘Inam Estate’ within the meaning of

Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and hence, was subject to

4

Page 5

the  provisions  of  the  1948  Act.   And  that,  the  ‘Inam  Estate’  stood

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

appellant's 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 were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? 2. Whether the suit is framed is not maintainable? 3. To what relief?”

7. The following additional issue is framed on 1-8-77:-

5

Page 6

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration prayed in the suit?”

9. In Suit No.73/1974, filed by respondent no.1, the following issues

were framed:-

“1) Whether  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 what relief?”

10.   Both  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

‘Inam  Estates’  by  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 a “ryotwari patta” for

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 “archaka”  and a  “trustee”

(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.   

6

Page 7

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.  It is not a matter of dispute between the rival parties, that

the aforesaid determination attained finality between the parties.

12. Whilst the claim of the appellant before this Court, was based on a

collective reading of Sections 3 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra

Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (already

extracted above), the claim of the Estate Officer, Devasthanam (on behalf

of  Sri  Sangameswara  Swamy  Varu)  was  based  on  Section  82  of  the

Andhra  Pradesh  Charitable  and  Hindu  Religious  Institutions  &

Endowments  Act,  1987  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  1987  Act’).

Section 82 aforementioned, is being extracted hereunder:

“82. Lease of Agricultural Lands:-(1)  Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stand cancelled.

(2) In respect of leases of agricultural lands other than those lands situated  in  Municipalities  and  Municipal  Corporations  held  by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such

7

Page 8

sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction:

Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants provided, if they agree to pay at least two third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount.  

Explanation:-  For  the  purpose  of  this  sub-section  ‘landless  poor person’ means a person whose total extent of land held by him either as  owner  or  as  cultivating  tenant  or  as  both  does  not  exceed 1.011715  hectares  (two  and  half  acres)  of  wet  land  or  2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property.

Explanation  II:-  For  the  purpose  of  this  sub-section,  small  and marginal farmer means a person who being a lessee is holding lands in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or acres 0.50 cents of dry land over and above the ceiling limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry  land  respectively  they  may  be  allowed  to  continue  in  lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction.

(3) The authority to sanction the lease or licence in respect of any property or any or interest thereon belonging to or given or endowed for  the  purpose  of  any  charitable  or  religious  institution  or endowment,  the manner in which and the period for which such lease or licence shall be such as may be prescribed.

(4) Every lease or licence of any immovable property, other than the Agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules as may be prescribed under sub-section (3).

(5) The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XVIII of 1956) and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950) shall not apply to any lease of land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institutions or endowment as defined in this Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

The case of respondent no.1 – Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu is, that

8

Page 9

any lease of agricultural land belonging to, or given, or endowed for the

purpose  of  any  institution  or  endowment,  subsisting  on  the  date  of

commencement  of  the  instant  Act,  shall  stand  cancelled.   Based  on

Section 82, it was asserted, that all existing rights in the appellant would

automatically stand terminated on the coming into force of the 1987 Act.

13. In order to support his aforestated contention, learned counsel for

the  respondent  institution  placed  reliance  on  Muddada  Chayanna  v.

Karnam Narayana, AIR 1979 SC 1320, on the following:

“3.  It  is  not  disputed  that  the  lands  are  situated  in  Bhommika village. It is not also disputed that Bhommika village was in Inam estate  and  that  it  was  taken  over  by  the  Government  under  the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The appellant claims that he is the lawful ryot of the lands in dispute and that the respondents are his tenants. On the other hand the respondents claim that they are the lawful ryots of the holding. The question at issue between the parties therefore is, whether the appellant or the respondents are the lawful  ryots  of  the  holding.  Under  Sec.  56(1)(c)  of  the  Andhra Pradesh  (Andhra  Area)  Estates  (Abolition  and  Conversion  into Ryotwari) Act "where, after an estate is notified, a dispute arises as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect  of  any  holding  is,  the  dispute  shall  be  decided  by  the Settlement  Officer".  Section  56(2)  provides  for  an  appeal  to  the Estates  Abolition  Tribunal  against  the  decision  of  the  Settlement Officer and further provides that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law. Prima facie, therefore, the question as to who is the lawful ryot of any holding, if such question arises for decision after an estate is notified,  has to  be resolved by the Settlement  Officer  and by the Estates  Abolition  Tribunal  under  Secs.  56(1)(c)  and  56(2)  of  the Andhra Pradesh Estates Abolition Act. The Andhra Pradesh Estates Abolition Act is a self contained code in which provision is also made for  the  adjudication  of  various  types  of  disputes  arising  after  an estate  is  notified,  by  specially  constituted  Tribunals.  On  general principles,  the  special  Tribunals  constituted  by  the  Act  must necessarily be held to have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes entrusted by the statute to them for their adjudication.

xxx xxx xxx 5. A brief resume of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra

9

Page 10

Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act relevant for  our  present  purpose  is  permissible  here.  As  stated  in  the preamble  the  Act  was  enacted  to  provide  for  the  repeal  of  the Permanent Settlement, the acquisition of the Rights of land-holders in  permanently  settled  and  certain  other  estates  and  the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates. Section 1(4) provides for the notification of  estates and Sec. 3 enumerates the consequences of notifying an estate under Sec. 1(4) of the Act. In particular  Sec.  3(b)  provides  that  the  entire  estate  shall  stand transferred  to  the  Government  and  vest  in  them  free  of  all encumbrances.  Section  3(c)  provides  that  all  rights  and  interests created  in/or  over  the  estate  by  the  land-holder  shall  cease  and determine as  against  the Government.  Section 3(d)  empowers the Government  to  take  possession  of  the  estate  but  saves  from dispossession any person who the Government considers is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta until  the question whether he is actually entitled to such patta is decided by the Settlement Officer in the case of a ryot or by the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal in the case of a land-holder. Section 3(f)  provides that the relationship of the landholder and ryot shall, as between them, be extinguished. Section 3(g) provides that ryots in the estate shall, as against the Government be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on them by or under the Act. Section 11 confers on every ryot in an estate the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti land which was included or ought to have been included in his holding on the notified date. Sections 12, 13 and 14 confer on the land-holder the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of private land in a Zamindari, Inam and Under-tenure estate  respectively.  Section  15(1)  provides  for  enquiry  by  the Settlement Officer into claims by a land-holder for a ryotwari patta, Under Secs. 12, 13 and 14. Section 15(2) provides for an appeal to the  Tribunal  from  the  decision  of  the  Settlement  Officer  and  it declares that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law.  Section 16 imposes on every person, whether a land-holder or a ryot who becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Act in respect of any land, the liability to pay to the Government the assessment that may be lawfully imposed on the land. Sections 21 to 23 provide for the survey of estates, the manner of affecting ryotwari settlement and the determination of the land-revenue.  Secs.  55  to  68  occur  under  the  heading "Miscellaneous". Section 55 provides for the collection of rent which had accrued before  the notified date.  Section 56 provides for  the decision  of  certain  disputes  arising  after  an  estate  is  notified.  It provides for the decision of a dispute as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is. The dispute is required to be decided by the Settlement Officer. Against the decision of the Settlement Officer, an appeal is provided to the

10

Page 11

Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal is declared final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law.

6. Now the Act broadly confers on every tenant in an estate the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti lands which were in- cluded or ought to have been included in his holding before the noti- fied date and on the land-holder the right to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of lands which belonged to him before the notified date as his private lands. The Act makes express provision for the determi- nation of claims by landholders for the grant of ryotwari patta in re- spect of the alleged private lands. If there is provision for the deter- mination of the claims of a landholder for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of his alleged private lands, surely, in an Act aimed at the abolition of  intermediaries and the introduction of  ryotwari  settle- ment, there must be a provision for the determination of the claims of ryots for the grant of ryotwari patta. Section 56(1) is clearly such a provision. But in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya (AIR 974 Andh Pra 85) (FB) it was held that an enquiry as to who was the lawful ryot was permissible under Section 56(1)(c) for the limited purpose of fastening the liability to pay arrear of rent which had accrued before a notified date and for no other purpose. The conclusion of  the Full  Bench was based entirely on the supposed context in which the provision occurs. The learned Judges held that Sec. 56(1)(c) occurred so closely on the heels of S. 55 and S. 56(1)(a) and (b), that the applicability of Sec. 56(1)(c) must be held to be "inti- mately  and integrally  connected"  with  those  provisions.  We think that the approach of the Full Bench was wrong. Apart from the fact that Secs. 55 and 56(1)(a), (b) and (c) occur under the heading "Mis- cellaneous", and, therefore, a contextual interpretation may not be quite appropriate,  the Full  Bench overlooked the serious anomaly created by its conclusion.  The anomaly is that while express provi- sion is found in Sec. 15 of the Act for the adjudication of claims by land-holders  for the grant of  ryotwari  pattas,  there  is,  if  the Full Bench is correct, no provision for the adjudication of claims by ryots for the grant of ryotwari pattas. It would indeed be anomalous and ludicrous and reduce the Act to an oddity, if the Act avowedly aimed at reform by the conferment of ryotwari pattas on ryots and the abo- lition of intermediaries, is to be held not to contain any provision for the determination of the vital question as to who was the lawful ryot of a holding.   The object of the Act is to protect ryots and not to leave them in the wilderness. When the Act provides a machinery in Section 56(1)(c) to discover who the lawful ryot of a holding was, it is not for the Court to denude the Act of all meaning by confining the provisions to  the bounds of  Secs.  55 and 56(1)(a)  and (b)  on the ground  of  "contextual  interpretation".  Interpretation  of  a  statute, contextual or otherwise must further and not frustrate the object of the statute. We are, therefore, of the view that Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya (supra) was wrongly decided in so far as

11

Page 13

terms of Section 11 of the 1948 Act, the appellant automatically became

entitled to a “ryotwari patta”.  We say so because, it is only when the

possession and occupation of the agricultural land is subsequent to the

first day of July, 1945, that the State Government would examine the

circumstances  of  each  case,  and  thereupon,  in  an  appropriate  case,

issue a direction, that “ryotwari patta” was to be extended to the tenant

of  such  agricultural  land.   However,  since  Original  Suit  No.32/1974

clearly declared, that the agricultural  land in question was under the

tenancy of the appellant and his ancestors well prior to the notified date

–  17.01.1959,  the  appellant  was  automatically  entitled  to  “ryotwari

patta”, in respect of the land in question.   

15. Having concluded as above, we are satisfied, that Section 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

13

Page 14

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

Swamy Varu.

16. It  is  also  relevant  for  us  to  notice,  that  in  order  to  escape  the

binding  liability  emerging  out  of  the  judgment  and  decree  dated

31.10.1977 (passed in Original Suit Nos. 32 of 1974 and 73 of 1974),

wherein  the  relationship  between  the  appellant  and  the  Sri

Sangameswara  Swamy  Varu,  was  held  to  be  not  as  of  tenant  and

landlord,  learned counsel  for  respondent no.1,  vehemently  contended,

that the civil courts had no jurisdiction in the matter, and as such, the

appellant could not derive any benefit from the above judgment.  It is not

necessary for us to deal in any detail, with the provisions relied upon by

learned counsel, because the precise submission advanced on behalf of

respondent no.1,  was examined in State  of  Tamil  Nadu v.  Ramalinga

Samigal Madam, (1985) 4 SCC 10, wherein this Court held as under:

“12.  Now turning to  the question raised in these appeals  for  our determination  (it is true that Section 64-C of the Act gives finality to the orders  passed  by  the  Government   or  other  authorities  in respect of  the matters  to  be determined by them under  the Act and sub-section (2)  thereof provides that no such orders shall  be called in question in any court of law. Even so, such a provision by itself  is  not,  having regard to the two propositions quoted  above from  Dhulabhai's case (1968) 3 SCR 662, decisive  on the  point  of ouster  of  the  Civil Court's jurisdiction  and several  other  aspects like the scheme of  the Act,  adequacy and sufficiency of  remedies provided by it etc., will have to be considered to ascertain the precise intendment of  the Legislature. Further, having regard to  the vital difference indicated above,  in  between the two sets of  provisions dealing  with grant of ryotwari pattas to landholders on the one hand

14

Page 16

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.  Only that,

respondent  no.1  claimed that  the  appellant  was  in  possession of  the

land, as its tenant.  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

appellant's possession was allegedly threatened.  Viewed as above, the

claim raised by the appellant, was certainly not barred by limitation.

18. Having concluded as above, we are of  the view, that the instant

appeal deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed, and

the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.

…….......................................J.          (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)    

         …….......................................J.               (ARUN MISHRA)                          

                  New Delhi; November 29, 2016.

16