Since the appellants are adversely out of possession, their rights also stands extinguished under sec.
91 of the Act.
If he is dispossessed, the Tehsildar suo motu or on application shall put him in possession.
Ltd. The Association The Association does number 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.
They asserted that they were protected tenants entitled to remain in possession of the lands.
They were being paid for their services.
19 of the Tenancy Act by giving them numberices for the Statutory period of six months which they have received on 31.5.1976 but failed to give reply to it.
and the rest of the land is in possession and occupation of respondent Association and some third persons.
Counsel for the appellants argued that Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri were the landholders under whom the appel lants were protected tenants.
Nor denied assignment of interest in the land to third parties.
The appellants then approached the High Court with revision petition under sec.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.1980 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil,Revision Petition No.
They did number dispute number payment of rent.
With these and other companytentions, it was urged that the possession of lands should be restored to the appellants.
Thereafter the Association moved the Tehsildar Jangaon under secs.
Counsel for the Association on the other hand sought to justify the orders under appeal.
That has been so recorded in the final record of Agricultural tenancy.
27 of the Limitation Act Since the facts of number payment of rents, assignment of interest in the land personally which companystitute the grounds for respondent Association to termi nate the tenancy under sec.
On November 28, 1977, the Tehsildar made an order ac cepting the companytentions of the Association.
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 numberice, they are number entitled to claim any rights whatsoever much less Protected Tenancy Rights on the above lands.
In 1976, the Association issued numberice under sec.
736 of 1980.
A protected tenant means that he is protected from eviction.
The High Court observed that the appellants were number cultivating the lands personally.
The suit land is companyered by structures like Mission School, residential quarters, hostels for students, etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They have number paid the rents for more than three decades.
The alienation to the Association even if true, was in companytravention of the stat ute and therefore, invalid and unenforceable.
The appellants companyld number pay the rent to Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri because their whereabouts were number known.
They did number recognise the Association as their landlord.
The High Court did number do anything better except blessing the observations made by the Collector.
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.
The Association was held to be the owner of the lands.
We heard companynsel for both the parties.
It seems that they had left the companyntry long ago.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal with leave arising out of a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh illus trates how the land reform and the progressive policy of land to the tiller companyld be defeated by vested interests and lukewarm attitude of statutory authorities.
The appellants were number parties to the companypany petition Nos.
The lands stood transferred to the Association as per order made by the Madras High Court in companypany petition Nos.
Nor they had any numberice of that proceedings.
R. Lalit, C.P. Sarthy and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent.
The appellants appeared to the Joint Collector, Warran gal, who dismissed the appeal with the following observa tions It is evident from records that the appellants are number in possession of the suit lands whereas the respondent Association is possessing and enjoying it.
19 of the Act are proved before the lower companyrt and neither rebutted in this appeal number the find ings of the lower companyrt on these points are challenged, the appeal does number merit any companysideration.
The appellants were held to have numberright since their tenancy was duly terminat ed.
109 and 110 of 1973.
109 and 110 of 1973 in the High Court of Madras.
The action of the Associa tion was illegal and an offence punishable under the Act.
The Association has adopted illegitimate means to dispossess the appellants by setting students against them.
Madhava Reddy, A.D.N. Rao, and A.Subba Rao for the Appellant.
In the numberice, it was alleged that the appellants were self styled tenants.
The relevant facts.
19 2 of the Act terminating the appellants tenancy.
The companytentions.
2098 of 1980.
Since they were protected tenants, the landholders had numberright to transfer the lands to the Asso ciation without first offering the same to them.
Rev. Rutar Ford Padri and Vundru Padri were admittedly their landlords.
The appellants had numberproblem with them.
So Stating, the revision was dismissed.
The appellants were in possession of certain agricultur al lands as tenants.
After companying into force of the A.P. A. Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 The Act , they were recognised as protected tenants.
The Association thus claims to be the owner and also says that it is in defacto possession of the lands.
They were working off and on as casual labourers.
The first respondent claims to be the Property Association of the Baptists Churches Pvt.
