Dismissed

The Grama Panchayat, Vatticherukuru, v. Nori Nagabhushanam (Died)

Telangana HC25 Jan 2011CRP/374/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, holding that the Panchayat was not entitled to seek relief under the Tenancy Act. The Court applied reasoning from a prior related petition, noting the petitioner was not a tenant nor claimant under the Act, directing it to pursue remedies elsewhere based on Supreme Court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with liberty to work out remedies based on Supreme Court judgment.

The Grama Panchayat, Vatticherukuru, Vs Nori… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.374 OF 2009

¶3

DATED: 25-01-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

The Gram Panchayat, Vatticherukuru, Rep.by its Execultive Officer, Guntur District & 4 others.

¶6

.... PETITIONERS

¶7

And

¶8

Nori Nagabhushanam (died) & another.

¶9

.... RESPONDENTS

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04-11-2008, in A.T.A.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur (Special Judge, Tenancy Appellate Tribunal), wherein the said appeal preferred by the petitioners 3 to 5 herein, was dismissed, confirming the order passed on 11-07-2001 in A.T.C.No.29 of 1996 on the file of the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. Perused the record.

¶13

3. The impugned order is a common order in A.T.A.No.53 of 2001, which was filed by the tenants and A.T.A.No.27 of 2002, which was filed by the Gram Panchayat, and both the appeals were dismissed. However, it is stated that separate Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order in A.T.A.No.27 of 2002. Be that as it may, the dispute in the present case came to be considered by this Court in earlier proceeding in

¶14

C.R.P.No.345 of 2009, which was filed by the Gram Panchayat against one Nori Radha Krishna Murthy, who is none else than the brother of the 1^st respondent herein. The lands, which are subject-matter of the earlier Civil Revision Petition and the present Civil Revision Petition, though different, are situate in the same survey number and the claim and counter-claim raised in respect of the said lands are one and the same, regarding its nature and scope.

¶15

4. In a connected civil proceedings relating to the same dispute between the tenants and the Gram Panchayat, the matter went upto the Supreme Court and the decision therein was reported in VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT v. NORI VENKATARAMA

¶16

DEEKSHITHULU AND OTHERS^[1] , wherein the decrees of dismissal of the suits filed by the Panchayat and the tenants were upheld and civil appeals were dismissed. In the earlier Civil Revision Petition No.345 of 2009, this Court while dismissing the said revision petition held as follows:

¶17

“The scope of enquiry in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act is very limited. It is only a dispute between a tenant and landlord in respect of an agricultural land, that can be adjudicated in such proceedings. The petitioner got

¶18

impleaded in the A.T.C., which was filed for eviction, and projected its right and title. It did not answer the description of either landlord or tenant. The reason is that the petitioner did not induct the second respondent into possession as a tenant and thereby it is not a landholder. It was not even urged that the petitioner is a tenant. Further, it was not claiming, either through the fist respondent or through the second respondent. If it had an independent right, it could have urged the same by instituting proceedings in a civil Court or before any statutory authority. Either way, the intrusion of the petitioner into the proceedings initiated by the first respondent against the second respondent is totally untenable”.

¶19

5. The reasoning mentioned above in the earlier Civil Revision Petition holds good in the present Civil Revision Petition as well inasmuch as the dispute raised in both is one and the same. Adopting the said reason, it is held that the Gram Panchayat is not entitled to seek any relief under the Tenancy Act and the remedy lies elsewhere. It is therefore held that there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out its remedies on the basis of the rights, if any, that have accrued to it under the judgment of the Supreme Court,

¶20

referred to supra, in accordance with law, with a liberty given to the petitioner in the earlier Civil revision Petition No.345 of 2009 as well.

¶21

6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶23

25^th January, 2011. Tsy

¶24

[1] 1991 SUPP (2) SCC 228

The Grama Panchayat, Vatticherukuru, v. Nori Nagabhushanam (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Grama Panchayat, Vatticherukuru, v. Nori Nagabhushanam (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chandrasekhar Rao, Vs State of A.P.

Smt. Tanakanti Lakshmidevi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Gousepeer, Vs The State of A.P.

Syeda Fathima Begum Vs Mir Fazle Ali Khan

Brijigopal Asawa Vs Jaikishan Asawa

Boddu Yohan, Vs The Secretary, Csi Krishna Godavari Diocese