NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8366­8367 OF 2010

Gaddam Ramulu & Anr.              ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Joint Collector, Adilabad  District & Ors.            …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the

High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.1442 of 2004

and judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in Review

CMP No.4647 of 2007 whereby the High Court

dismissed the civil revision petition and the review

petition filed by the appellants herein.  

1

2. A few relevant facts need mention  infra  for

disposal of these appeals.

3. The dispute relates to a land measuring Ac.13.02

guntas  in   Survey No.92, Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey

No.  93 and 28 guntas  in Survey No.  95 situated  in

Garmilla Village, Mancherial Adilabad   (hereinafter

referred to as “the suit land”).

4. One Mr. Gaddam Durgaiah held the suit land as

a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on certain

conditions. On his death, his sons (appellants herein)

inherited the suit land. It was, however, noticed that

the appellants, contrary to the purpose for which the

suit land was allotted to them i.e. cultivation,

transferred it to several persons who made

construction thereon.  

5. A show cause notice was, therefore, served on the

appellants (protected tenants) under Section 19 of the

2

Act as to why the allotment of the suit land made in

their favour be not cancelled. Since the appellants

failed to file any reply, the rights conferred on them

being the protected tenants under the Act were

cancelled  by the  Mandal  Revenue  Officer  vide  order

dated  06.10.1990.  

6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed an appeal

before the  Joint  Collector,  Adilabad.  By  order  dated

20.06.1998, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal

and held as under:

“An examination of lower court records reveal that the appellant was issued a show cause notice u/s 19 of the AP  (T.A)  Tenancy and Agril. Land Act, 1950 and got served on 26.9.90 for giving his explanation for the alienation of P.T. land in S.No. 92 to an extent of (6­28) acres to Sri Nelli Ramlo S/o Buchanna through an ordinary sale deed on 20.1.1954, Sri Nalli Ramloo in turn has sold away the land to an extent of (5­10) acres to the president Forest Association, Mancherial on 16.3.1969. The President Forest Association Mancherial has donated the area of (5­10) acres and an extent of (0­32) gts to the Z.P., High School,  Mancherial for play ground and the land in question at present being used as play ground. The question of having possession by the appellants is baseless.  Thus  the P.T.  & L.Rs.  of  PT have

3

alienated the land to others and contraversed the provisos of section 48­A and 40 of the AP (TA) Tenancy and Agril. Lands Act 1950. For the violation of condition by the L.Rs. of P.T. the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial has cancelled the P.T. rights of the P.T. vide MRO, Proc.No. A/2148/90 dt. 6.10.90, L.Rs. of the protected tenant not all cultivated the land as they have also sold the land to Sri Thoutam Veeramallu and to others. The L.Rs. of P.T. have violated the condition (19) of the AP(TA) Tenancy & Agricultural lands Act. 1950.

In view of the above, I do not find reason to interfere  with the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial order dated 6.10.90 and the appeal is dismissed.”

7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order dated

20.06.1998 and filed a revision petition   in the High

Court. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed

the  revision petition and review petition also,  which

has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of

special leave by the appellants  in this Court.

8. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration  in these  appeals, is  whether the  High

Court was right in dismissing the revision petition and

the review petition and upholding the orders impugned

therein.

4

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case including the

written submissions  filed by  the parties,  we  find no

merit in these appeals.

11. In our considered opinion,  the order passed by

Mandal Revenue Officer, Joint Collector as an

Appellate Court and lastly, the High Court in its

revisionary jurisdiction rightly dealt with the issue

arising in the case against the appellants in relation to

the suit land.  

12. All the three Courts held and, in our view, rightly

that a clear case of violation of terms of grant and the

provisions of Section 19 read with Sections 40   and

48­A of the Act has been made out against the

appellants.   It was held that the appellants instead of

cultivating the suit land transferred it to several

persons for other purpose which was against the grant

and the provisions of the Act. The appellants, however,

5

failed to prove otherwise despite affording them  an

opportunity to file reply.

13. In our view, a clear case of contravention of terms

of grant read with Sections 19, 40 and 48­A   of the

Act is made out against the appellants.   We find no

good ground to take any other view than the one taken

by the Courts below on the facts found proved.  

14. On perusal of  the written submissions also, we

are unable to notice any point worth taking note of to

disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the

three Courts below.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals

have no merit.  They are accordingly dismissed.  

         ………...................................J.        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

   …...……..................................J.                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; February 27, 2019

6