KOTAIAN AND ANR. v. PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES (PVT.) LTD

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 472

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.L. OZA, S. NATARAJAN, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY

Case summary

The Association does not dispute that the lands were originally purchased by Rev. The appellants appeared to the Joint Collector, Warrangal, who dismissed the appeal with the following observations:

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal with leave arising out of a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh illustrates how the "land reform" and the progressive policy of "land to the tiller" could be defeated by vested interests and lukewarm attitude of statutory authorities. The relevant facts. The appellants were in possession of certain agricultural lands as tenants. After coming into force of the A. P. (T. A. ) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('The Act"), they were recognised as protected tenants. A "protected tenant" means that he is protected from eviction. If he is dispossessed, the Tehsildar suo motu or on application shall put him in possession. Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri were admittedly their landlords. The appellants had no problem with them. It seems that they had left the country long long ago. The first respondent claims to be the Property Association of the Baptists Churches (Pvt. ) Ltd.

("The Association"). The Association does not dispute that the lands were originally purchased by Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vandru Padri but it says that they purchased for the benefit of American Baptish Formation Society. The lands stood transferred to the Association as per order made by the Madras High Court in company petition Nos. 109 and 110 of 1973. The Association thus claims to be the owner and also says that it is in defacto possession of the lands. In 1976, the Association issued notice under sec. 19(2) of the Act terminating the appellants' tenancy. In the notice, it was alleged that the appellants were self styled tenants. They have. not paid the rents for more than three decades. They were working off and on as casual labourers. They were being paid for their services. There was no other relationship between them and the Association.

It was further alleged that the appellants sub-divided the lands and alienated bit by bit to third parties and thereby denied title of the landholder. They have been, therefore, treated as trespassers. On May 31, 1976, the appellants received the said notice but did not send anyseply. Thereafter the Association moved the Tehsifdar Jangaon under secs. 19(2) read with 28(1) of the Act seeking symbolic • possession of the lands from the appellants. It is interesting to note some of the averments made in that application: j "Neither of the above persons had possession during the statutory period under sec. 34 of the Tenancy Act to claim protected tenancy over the said lands. The said persons by taking undue advantage of the similarity of the names appearing in the Tenancy Registers with respect to the said lands . are asserting fictitious and imaginery rights of Protected Tenancy in the above lands..

It is submitted that without any basis or foundation and are made without any notice to the then landlords and even if it is to assume that the said persons are the protected tenants with respect to the above lands, their so called rights have been duly and legally terminated under sec. 19 of the Tenancy Act by giving them notices for the Statutory period of six months KOTAIAN v. BAPTIST CHURCHES [SHEITY, J. ] 475 which they have received on 31. 5. 1976 but failed to give reply to it. The termination of the Protected Tenancy Rights is irrevocable and after the expiry of the statutory period from the said date of receipt of the notice, they are not entitled to claim any rights whatsoever much less Protected Tenancy Rights on the above lands. " xx xx xx xx xx xx "In all the above lands the appellant is having his own cultivation for the benefit of the said schools and hostels. Some lands are cultivated by the students themselves under the "Cow-Boy" System.

All the above lands are in physical possession of the applicant herein. But to overcome the legal implications, the applicants are claiming symbolic possession pursuant to termination notice. " Before the Tehsildar, the appellants denied all the above allegations. They did not recognise the Association as their landlord. They asserted that they were protected tenants entitled to remain in possession of the lands. On November 28, 1977, the Tehsildar made an order accepting the contentions of the Association. The Association was held to be the owner of the lands. The appellants were held to have no right since their tenancy was duly terminated. .. The appellants appeared to the Joint Collector, Warrangal, who dismissed the appeal with the following observations: "It is evident from records that the appellants are not_ in possession of the suit lands whereas the respondent Association is possessing and enjoying it.

The suit land is covered by structures like Mission School, residential quarters, hostels for students, etc. and the rest of the land is in possession and occupation of respondent-Association and some third persons. Since the appellants are adversely out of possession, their rights also stands extinguished under sec. 27 of the I. imitation Act ..... Since the facts of non-payment of rents, assignment of interest in the land personally which--constitute the grounds for respondent Association to terminate the tenancy under sec. 19 of the Act are proved before the lower court and